Cisco Wireless Reviews

In general, for the wireless LAN controller, Cisco is coming up with new solutions every day, they're improving their products. Networking is getting serious, becoming easier to be done for clients, configurations are becoming easier to be done. 

Cisco 5500 Wireless Controller, for example, has a number of features: 

• supports a lot of access points
• better GUI
• better management
• better control. 

If an issue comes up, the GUI of this particular wireless controller is well supported, very good to use.

Recently, one of our clients had a problem with their wireless connection at their location. The problem was that they were using the old series for the access points. We suggested that they use Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Point because, if you go to the actual data sheet of the access point, there are way more lines, the radio is better, the broadcasting system is better, the control is better.

Maybe the actual Cisco products can also be made cloud-based, though it would be competing with the Meraki. But I think that would improve the market. It would improve configuration. It would help the clients a lot, because if everything was cloud-based, we could just guide the clients through the situation, so they could do the configurations on their own. It would help the clients to save money as well.

Everything is fine. Cisco products are perhaps the most reliable on the market. While deploying, we have never faced an issue.

Different issues come up for the different companies because they need different things done in their networks, so that depends on the company. But in the deployment, hardware-wise, there isn't any problem. There is always room for the improvement but, from my perspective, no problems with stability.

I did not switch to Cisco. We suggest products based on the clients' needs. It depends on the different scenarios we come across. It depends on the clients, what their requirements are and what their budgeted is, because Cisco is more on the expensive side, as compared to Aruba, but I must say Cisco's quality is unmatched, for sure.

It’s a standard thing. For the switches it's a standard thing, for the router it's a standard thing, same with the wireless LAN controller or the access points. It's not difficult. For a person who's doing it for first time, it's going to be complicated, but once you get used to it, it’s pretty much the same thing all the time.

My suggestion would be to go with Cisco products.

Scalability

• Multiple SSID's
• Ability to offer WI-FI to guest in a secure environment

None.

Two years. (WLC 5508)

Older WAP's can be an issue as the firmware makes them problematic. Requires upgrading the WLC firmware to see units properly.

None.

None.

8 out of 10.

8 out of 10.

Several. Cisco is more scalable and actually less costly over time.

Fairly straightforward - need to understand the Cisco way of breaking things out but otherwise no issues.

We implemented it in-house.

Approximately $20,000 with no additional costs.

• Meraki
• SonicWALL

Understand your need. Let the need drive the purchase not the other way around.

Cisco is a console controller. We can use it on a server for business purposes, control channels, and ensure a quality user experience.

The tool is mainly improving our productivity.

The solution has good technology and security.

The price could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for over 10 years.

The product is very stable.

The solution is scalable. 20 users are using this solution.

The initial setup is easy and takes a week to complete.

The product is expensive.

My target customers include individuals in banking, industry professionals, and employees of enterprise companies. They have existing affiliations and connections with a good level of connectivity. Cisco wireless effectively safeguards data and assets within homes or other environments.

We can use some firewalls from Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide enterprise wireless solutions for employees. We're a system integration provider, and we have a number of customers. Our customers deploy our wireless solutions in an active-standby mode for better network stability. We mostly have customers who have standalone wireless controllers.

I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible.

In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year. Cisco is the defacto brand in wireless technology, and they're a little bit behind. They need to introduce some AI features so we can introduce the customer to these new features.

Some training will help because Cisco's new offering, 9800, requires a lot of hands-on experience. This is because the Cisco 9800 controller is new compared to the previous models, like 2504 and 3504. It requires more hands-on experience to get familiar with the terminologies used in 9800. This is because there are some AP profiles and site profiles, and all these things we aren't familiar with. It's a good tool.

I've been implementing Cisco Wireless for the last five years.

Cisco Wireless is obviously very stable, and there's no doubt about that. When you go for Airwave, it's very stable. The new IOx is going to be stable, and we're deploying it for a couple of customers.

You can deploy it for whatever your user wants and their AP count. It's very good when it comes to scalability.

Cisco technical support is great. Cisco is based in Texas and provides technical support in any manner. Cisco provides support to customers who require it for updates or break-fix IT.
Support is wonderful. We haven't had a problem.

It's easy to set up and implement this solution. For a basic implementation, you can deploy it within two or three hours. This is for a basic deployment for publishing SSID and testing. At a granular level, you may need a week to deploy this solution. This is because, in wireless scenarios, you need to do tests and try different testing scenarios. It's a very good basic solution for deploying to the cloud.

From a pricing point of view, it's a little bit expensive compared to competitors like Aruba and others. But the product is also very promising and very stable. The hardware is wonderful. As a system integrator, it's okay, but you'll probably see it as expensive as a customer.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.

We primarily use the solution for the internal network connection.

The management solutions the product has on offer are the most valuable aspects of the solution. It makes everything easy to manage from the perspective of an IT administrator.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution can scale well.

We've found the product to be very stable and quite reliable.

So far, we've found that the product offers everything we need it to.

I don't see any features that are really lacking.

The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues.

I've been using the solution for the last ten years at this point. It's been about a decade. We've used it for quite a long time now.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

The solution is pretty scalable. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so fairly easily. It's not hard.

We have between 300 to 400 people on the solution currently.

We aren't fully satisfied with technical support at this time. They are getting better, however, they need to improve their services still.

The implementation process is not complex at all. it's very straightforward. We didn't face any issues.

The deployment process was also very quick. It didn't take long to have everything up and running.

Our procurement team handles the contracts for this solution. Therefore, I don't have any insights into pricing.

We're just end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

Currently, just doing the upgrade. I'm just doing the upgrade in order to have Wi-Fi 6 enabled, which is the new technology. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pretty happy with it.

We use it to provide Wi-Fi solutions at business centers, malls, for healthcare, and in public parks.

For me, there are two important features:

1. WLAN grouping – Allows us to have different groups and, within those groups, specific WLANs, so there is no overlapping.
2. FlexConnect – Enables us to have remote offices at different locations. We can have a central WLC to control all the locations.
   

There is room for improvement regarding HA issues and Radius integration.

No real issues with stability. It’s pretty stable. We can have a backup, and restoring is easy.

Scalability depends on the design. It supports most variations like VOIP and Multicast. At times, we may face interference issues with other devices like 3G, 4G, or smartphones.

Cisco TAC (technical assistance center) is one of the best tech support teams around.

I did use HPE's Aruba solution, but not that extensively.

The initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who knows VLAN and radio/frequency concepts can set it up. It’s pretty self-explanatory.

Pricing is a bit on the high side compared to its competitors but we have to consider the support and usages of the solution.

Licensing is now RTU and smart licensing. We need three types of licenses, one for the:

• APs
• HA
• controller.

HPE Aruba.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at eight out of 10 because of its ease of installation on virtual platforms, on appliances. It is easy to maintain and configurations are straightforward. It provides the flexibility to create and integrate with many social Wi-Fi solutions. It is a reliable and stable solution. The ROI is very good.

We moved to the solution after we had some hardware issues. 

We use it with laptops for wireless connection via the cloud.

The performance is very good. If you compare it to Aruba, we find the ability to roam much better.

The functionality has been very good.

The stability is very good overall.

It's easy to configure.

I've found it to be quite secure.

We've recently had hardware issues which have caused us some problems. 

There are some models that have more coverage than ours. We'd like for them to work towards providing more coverage across models. 

The solution is a bit expensive.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. It hasn't been too long. 

We've had a good experience with the stability of this product. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable for the most part I don't recall it crashing or freezing. 

We have about 90 users of the solution in our office at this time. 

We don't really deal with support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also use Meraki as well.

I'm aware of Aruba's capabilities and find Cisco to be better. However, it costs a bit more than Aruba.

The installation process isn't too difficult.

I cannot speak to exactly how long it took to deploy. I can't remember the length of time off-hand. 

Three people worked on the implementation. They were a manager and two technicians. 

While we did have some access to information to help us, we mostly handled the implementation process on our own.

The pricing is on the high side. For example, it is more expensive to use than Aruba.

We have a license, however, I do not manage it. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, it depends on the capabilities of the end-user. Some may find it difficult. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are pleased with it so far.

Cisco has good support services.

Simplification in terms of deployment would be good. The need for different boxes should be improved as well.

The architecture is becoming complex. It's not a three-layer architecture; it's only two layers, and the access is based on the leaf and spine. However, there are lots of components, and we need to add more components and more licenses for services. This ends up becoming costly.

I have been working for almost seven years with Cisco Wireless.

Cisco's technical support is good.

Because the Cisco architecture is quite complex, you may end up having to add more components and licenses. So, the cost could go up.

Cisco is quite complex compared to Aruba Central, which is more user friendly and easy to handle. I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven on a scale from one to ten.