Cisco ACI is a very scalable solution, and you can always add another site to the existing architecture, either over the internet or with dark fiber. It has become an extension of the same data center.

Most of our clients for Cisco ACI are enterprise businesses.

I rate Cisco ACI ten out of ten for scalability.

ACI's scalability is good - I would rate it 4.5 out of five.

It's quite scalable. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have features like fabric provision and tenant isolation, which makes it competitive with other OEMs.

We have enterprises primarily as our customers. 

The scalability is pretty good. You should have two of the spines altogether. Then the leaves can expand when you want to have more bandwidth or more throughput requirement.

If you need more computing power or networking power in the data center, then you have to add the leaves. Of course, if you need more throughput power, it's a bit different. For example, if one spine has the power of 4GBs, the two spines, which are combined, give the power of 8GBs, if you want more throughput, for example, 50GBs, you just go and add a couple of spines to it to commit to that sort of power. 

We tend to work with medium to large organizations.

I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten.

Scalability is another powerful feature of Cisco ACI. For example, if you need to add another endpoint, you don't need to redesign your network. You can simply add a switch or a leaf switch and you're good to go. If you need to increase the number of devices or add more bundles, you can add a spine switch or a backbone switch without any redesign because the fabric is initialized from zero. You can add or delete devices without the need for a complete redesign. So it's a very scalable solution, and scalability is the most powerful feature of Cisco ACI.

Cisco ACI is a scalable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a ten.

I rate the scalability of ACI as nine out of ten, leaving room for potential improvements or aspects that I haven't explored fully.

I believe that Cisco ACI is highly scalable. Anytime that you want to add bandwidth, you just need to add a spine and anytime you need more ports, you just need to add that. And the very cool feature is the different typology that ACI can support now. Before that, it was a stretch, especially the typology. Nowadays, everyone is talking about the IPN and the multi-part.

For bigger operations with different data centers in different locations, you can deploy multi-site and it also offers some support remotely. I've never deployed it, but you can use a virtual peak that gives this and also enables a multi-tier. That's also very helpful with customers that don't want to spend a lot of money for the cable or transceivers. And the hardware is massive. I really love the hardware. The MTBF is huge. Everything is stable.

We haven't had any problems with scaling the platform because it's easy to add a leaf or spine.

You can scale the solution, but you cannot scale to other products. I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability. 

For backup you might want two people, but one person can handle all of the maintenance. Everything is managed centrally. This is a backend product, so not everyone knows they are using Cisco ACI. The organization I currently work for has over 10,000 employees, and practically everyone is involved in usage of the solution. 

The scalability is okay. 

Cisco ACI is very scalable. There's no real length to it. If you look at ACI, you can have an endless number of layers. 

The size of our environment is about 2,000 nodes. It's not a huge network, it's pretty medium-sized.

Scalability is pretty good. 

Scalability-wise, Cisco ACI is a good solution because you can have more than five thousand servers in one ACI fabric. There's a lot of flexibility and scalability in Cisco ACI because you can even seamlessly integrate it with legacy infrastructure despite having a different data center.

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. My company has around 150 users for the solution. 

The solution is scalable; you can have multi-site scenarios. 

We have not hit the limit, so it's been very scalable for us. Redundancy has been great.

While supposedly it's scalable, the program is not. I don't have any data point that I can provide for scalability within ACI, as our environment is fairly small.

The scalability is good.

Cisco ACI is scalable.

The scalability is okay. We are deploying the leaf switches one-to-one.

While I acknowledge that the solution is scalable, there are occasional bugs and the need for upgrades or adjustments approximately every five years. We operate on multiple levels, with small, medium, and high scalability organizations. Typically, we opt for the highest scalable level during our implementations. I would rate its scalability at seven out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

We have around 10,000 people in our organization.

The scalability is great. This is the greatest feature of the technology. It is a great improvement in scaling out. It can greatly increase the overall scalability of the Fabric with multi-port and multi side, making it a great product.

Scalability is great in a Cisco ACI environment. But when you're migrating from an old data center into ACI, there are some challenges. 

In all the people that manage it, most are just trying to throw entire networks with multiple environments on them into ACI. It's good but it also has a lot of challenges for us.

It is really scalable. It is the most scalable product that I have tried.

We have been one year on the project and it is very scalable. We have tested it in our data centres, and it's easy to add more automation processes.

It's scalable.

The project is pretty small, but from what we have seen, it is scalable.

I would give the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. The scalability options are really good. You just connect the leaves to the spine and it comes up. The scalability is not an issue.

The biggest environment I've worked with has two spines, spines with 16 leaves.

In terms of the number of users on it, initially it was really difficult for customers to adopt the new technology because it was a wholly new concept. Now, with time, and as ACI comes out with the new features, and the stability is really strong, the adoption is really good. According to Cisco engineers, they have customers who have gone up to 6,000 users.

Regarding the possibility of our customers' increasing their usage of ACI, we don't see that much indication of it, because what the customers are looking is more along the lines of having their fabric be more redundant. One of the features engineers are looking for is the Endpoint Tracker, which has had some issues. It is not that user-friendly.

We like its scalability because we have use its paths to bring all the networks into ACI. Therefore, we need to be able to scale.

This solution is scalable. We are system integrators providing solutions to our customers. Approximately fifty percent of our customers are using ACI. 

It's scalable.

In terms of scalability, you can go with the two-spine and get very good bandwidth, but if you need more than this you can increase the spine count. If you need more devices you can increase the leaf count. Scalability is there.

We chose Cisco ACI because of its scalability.

There are no issues with scalability. We can easily scale. 

It's easy to keep adding. You have a set where you just add another leaf to your ACI fabric. 

I can scale quite easily. Just add another leaf to my ACI fabric. It seems straightforward.

The scalability has been great. It is very easy to scale. We are quite a big customer, so we had some scalability issues with the older, multi-part environment versions of Cisco products.

Scalability is another point for our cloud project. We use Cisco ACI, because when we expand the network another 10 to 20 switches more, the switches are easier to implement now. We  connect the new switches to the spine infrastructure, then they are the switches are ready to configure.

Scalability is definitely something that we are looking at and that's one of the attractive features of ACI for us. It's one configuration interface and if you want to add more interface you just buy more gear and plug it in. It's almost a plug and play solution. We just don't know how our business is going to grow and change over time. We can buy and implement something today and they can come and say that they are doing an acquisition or some sort of growth or new business venture and we need more capacity in the data center. With ACI, if you need more capacity you can just buy more and plug them in without needing to do anything else. All of the sudden that infrastructure is there for me to use, configure, and add stuff to.

In terms of scalability there is just one limitation. When you want the security rules and features to be applied on the application NIC level - on the virtual NIC level, on the network interface level, on the application itself, on the virtualization domain - you cannot do that. The application needs to reach via API so you can apply the security policy. Then the security policies will be applied and then it can talk to other applications. This is one thing that is missing on ACI. But you cannot say that it's actually missing because that's the overlay approach of SDN; it's not underlay like NSX.

It's scalable because of the spine-and-leaf infrastructure. You can add spine and leaf. I haven't scaled it that much. We've only used three or four leaves into the ACI infrastructure. But I believe the scalability is good.

The scalability is very good. This is one of the best features, because you can add it at any time, then scale as needed.

It is scalable. We have a lot of devices. Our network have tens of thousands of devices.

It is very scalable and easy to add new devices on, which is very good.

In terms of scalability, we haven't grown the deployment yet and we are nowhere near capacity. But it seems like it is relatively scalable in terms of what we could use. It's a matter of what do we need. I just haven't had the opportunity to increase the scale of what we have right now.

Scalability has mostly been perfectly adequate for what we have needed so far. We have not hit too many limits.

It has large scalability. You can deploy a new pod, rack, or service in just a few of minutes instead of hours or days of work. 

The solution is extremely scalable in ways that pure hardware solutions were incapable of.

We are not that big to reach the limit (or edges) of this technology. Its scalability is fine. It is very easy to scale. 

Today, doing changes to the infrastructure is a nightmare. Every single device has different programs and programmatics. However, with this tool, you simply plug and play. When you want to scale, you add one piece, and it's done. It works.

Cisco ACI is scalable and easy to expand. Cisco ACI is a data center concept. We have 1000 servers.

The scalability is impressive. I think the best thing about that is the vendor-agnostic part. In the lab, we did a VMware deployment from what I heard it doesn't matter how the VM is deployed, it can integrate with ACI and you can manage it from the Epic controller.

It is quite scalable. It is one of the most scalable products we have come across.

We have five people who are using it in our company in Portugal.

The scalability is great. You get more capacity. You can extend it to another data center remotely. 

This is a highly scalable solution, and we are running it in some really large environments. We have ACI installed in data centers that have more than one hundred leaps, which is thousands of servers.

Scalability is definitely something that we're looking at, and it's one of the attractive features of ACI for us. It is easy to do.

The way ACI works is it is one configuration interface. If you want to add more then you just plug it in. I would not call it plug-and-play, but they've made it to the point where it is very close. 

This is important to us because we just don't know how our business is going to grow, and change, over time. It's a moving target for us. If we buy something today, and then there is a demand for more capacity in the data center, then we just have to buy more devices and plug them in. We don't have to do anything else. The infrastructure just becomes available for us to use. This differs considerably from the traditional Cisco, which involved a lot of command lines and configuration.

The scalability is really good.

While I haven't done big installs, it does seem like it would scale well.

We have not thought about scaling at this time.

Before scaling, you have to develop the scripts.

Its scalability is very good. It is really easy to scale in this product.

The scalability of the product seems great. It doesn't seem to have too many limitations if you want to scale out. We haven't run into any issues yet.

We haven't really grown or changed the network since this solution was installed, so I cannot comment on scalability.

The scalability is very good, based on the spine-leaf structure. You can increase the number of leaves and you can also scale the spines. You can deploy four spines, eight spines.

There's a lot of options with scalability. There's a limit of 1000 devices.

It has very good scalability. 

The scalability is good. At the moment, we are using about 18 percent of the solution. In a few months, when we grow, we should be using more performance of the solution.

In terms of scalability, this solution is pretty good.

The scalability of the solution I cannot rate at this time since I just started.

It is scalable, although it depends on the design and the customer.

This is not a product for small-scale users. If we have customers with large data center requirements, we offer them Cisco ACI. For example, it is not for small enterprises without a lot of services running in their data center.

Scaling is easy because we can add, as required. While it depends on the design, scalability is not normally an issue.

So far, the scalability has been good. It has been better than other products.

The product is scalable. You can scale east-west by adding in additional leaf switches. I haven't experienced any scale issues so far, which is good.

The scalability is very good, as the controller automatically detects new additions and scales itself. It's agile because it's a cloud-based network.

The scalability depends on the hardware performance. Most of vendors use the traditional chip such as Broadcom , so I suppose the performance and scalability of ACI switches are the same as other competitors. 

The scalability of Cisco ACI is good so far.

There is a scalability path on the Cisco website. We are currently working on scaling the product.

This solution is both scalable and stable.

On paper, it scales.

I have seen the guide for scalability and I think it's great. I have no complaints. 

I would rate the scalability about a ten.

Our deployment is very small, so I'm not the right guy to speak with about scalability.

It is pretty scalable.

I deployed it in a small environment (a lab), so I cannot comment on scalability.

The scalability's capabilities are very good for our needs.

The scalability is perfect. It is one of the main reasons that we install it.