Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We use this solution for a full range of layer two and only limited set of layer three services.

We are a backbone company and we provide a public service. The traffic of millions of users traverse Cisco switches, but they are not within our company. It's a public service.

We plan to increase our usage of this solution.

The operating system is great.

They need to implement sFlow, other than that, I can't think of anything else that needs to be improved — I am happy.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for roughly 10 years. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches are very stable. We've been using them for 10 years without any issues. 

We use an old model, they're not designed to be scalable. But in general, the Catalyst networking suite is scalable.

For our application which is rather simple, we are using only 5% of the features that Cisco Catalyst switches offer. We haven't encountered any problems and therefore, we have not had to call technical support.

We used to use other products, but our CTO loves Cisco. 

The initial setup is straightforward and very fast. In total, the whole installation process took two days.

We deployed this solution by ourselves. 

3-years

The price could always be lower.

Arista, Fiber Store, Dell, Extreme Networks

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Catalyst Switches a rating of ten.

Generally, we are using Cisco Catalyst switches for the campus network. We are currently using the Cisco Catalyst 3800 Series switches with IOS XE, and we also recently onboarded the Catalyst 9300 Series and 9400 Series, mostly for the campus network. We also use the 3800 Series switch for wireless connectivity, which provides UPOE, supporting up to 60 watts for the PoE devices.

Performance-wise, Catalysts are so good in the LAN infrastructure, especially for a campus network. But for a data center environment, we mostly prefer the Cisco Nexus series.

Cisco Catalyst is one of the most famous and popular devices for campus networks, widely used in most of the country. They are the preferred networking switches with many features that help eliminate the need for a more complex OSPF. They are also easy to configure and manage. With the vulnerability assessment report, we can see there are more improvements coming from Cisco for campus area network switches.

HSRP (Hot Standby Router Protocol) is one valuable feature. In the 3800 Series, we have the Stacking feature which enables combining switches to get more bandwidth and produce high-availability. The Stacking feature can also actually eliminate the need for HSRP.

I would like to see hosting multiple applications on the existing IOS.

Stability-wise it is good. We have had multiple Catalyst switches running for quite a long period of time without even a single reboot. Performance-wise that is quite okay.

The way it is being deployed it is expandable. We can add additional devices, so it is good.

I have used support for Catalyst and it was good.

In most places, we were already using it, and we are continuing to use it. We could see the stability was better and it's quite easy to manage. We are also used to it. In addition, we're able to get technical support as well as vendor support.

Setup is quite straightforward. You need to understand some of the basic components, how to set up the basic requirements. Apart from that, it is quite easy. You won't struggle much if you have a basic understanding of it.

Another candidate would be Juniper switches.

The main thing is that Catalyst has been around for quite a long period. Cisco is one of the leaders in campus area networks, so investing in Catalysts, given that they are reliable, is safe.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.

I would give a Cisco Catalyst a nine out of 10 because most campus networks use Cisco and it is one of the best campus network switches. Its performance is quite good, it’s seamless, and stability-wise it is good.

The last Catalyst I used was for a core solution in an airport. That was a 3850. The previous use case was as the backbone of an ISP. We used different models of Cisco Catalyst including 3560s and 3700s.

When we started working with a regular Catalyst, the 2060, we mostly had a VLAN-based network. But in 2015, I worked with a well-known NGO, World Vision, in Bangladesh. They have around 84 locations all over the country, and they expected that their entire network would be authenticated through 802.1X. They expected that their network would be centrally policy-driven and allocated, that they would have posture assessment, and captive portal. Other than using a Catalyst, we couldn't have afforded to have these features.

In my country, Catalysts are used mostly for simple distribution, not more than that.

There were some other areas we've worked on the last two years. Most of the organizations who were going for Catalyst switches with Layer 2 options expected Identity Services integration. They were concentrating on having 802.1X authentication policy-making.

Recently I have had a little hiccup working with Catalyst switches. They used a few power integration features but I'm not sure they really resulted in much power saving. But, it caused cross-vendor equipment trouble.

For example, if I put some sort of equipment other than Cisco in a Cisco network, where the energy is marked as an option for Catalyst, sometimes I end up with a link breakage situation. This is because Cisco can understand its own structural power dependency and optimization, but it cannot understand the power optimization for other vendors' equipment. I had a really tough time managing the networks.

Also, Cisco has been introducing some software options in Layer 3 switches. I don't find that to be important so far, when there are have SDN options all over the world now. Certain switches are even leaving that out of the licensing option, and they are providing you embedded options so that you can actually use open-source SDNs. I don't believe that this is a good option, that Cisco is actually keeping so many licensing options for Catalyst. That is my opinion on the Catalyst 9000 series.

So far, I haven't really found any lack of stability. The switches are really good. The Catalyst 2960 switches had some issues earlier, power issues as I mentioned. It had more port failure and port damage issue than previous versions. But after we found the 2960-XR and others, they really improved.

I have been happy with Catalyst performance. It's doing better.

In terms of scalability, it's really working fine.

Cisco tech support is really slow. In the time it takes them to actually understand a scenario, we have mostly found our way out on our own.

In 2015, when I had a major deployment, I had an issue resulting from a captive portal for a 2960-Plus switch with IC. I opened a ticket. The call created questions and seven days went by. So I had to intervene in the entire operation, and found that it had a workaround, and I instructed my engineers to do that. Eventually, the problem was solved, but I really wanted to see whether Cisco could solve the problem. So I kept the ticket going and asked them what they were doing, what results they were providing, because there are certain areas they are expert and, ultimately, they can actually tell me what is the better way to do that. But after 21 days, I found that they were not getting anywhere, whereas in 10 days, we had already solved the problem. Then I asked my people to close the ticket because there was no use keeping it open. It was better that we resolved it ourselves.

So I don't appreciate Cisco tech support.

I have been using different switches side-by-side.

There have been certain issues. There was one implementation where Cisco was awarded up to the firewall and Dell was awarded from the server farm to all the servers in storage: the server from the switch, then the Dell MXL blade switches. That was the time got to compare the Dell performance with the Cisco Nexus 5 series performance. We found that Dell's performance was much more flexible than Cisco Nexus.

There was another case where I was using PowerConnect with the Dell EqualLogic. When we purchased a Dell EqualLogic, we had to buy a good throughput Cisco switch. When we compared the Cisco switch price with the Dell PowerConnect, we found that Dell PowerConnect was much cheaper. We had certain Cisco switches already. When we compared these switches side-by-side, we found that the PowerConnect was performing much better with the iSCSI.

I'm not saying that I shifted from another vendor, but I actually use these things side-by-side, considering several situations.

I wouldn't say the setups are really that complex because most of the setups we have done in Bangladesh were basically structured data center diagrams, which we have found from Cisco or any other network architecture. Those were pretty simple architectures.

If you consider Cisco's price with the Dell, you will definitely lose with Cisco. But Cisco has a major area of equipment in general. Cisco has routers, firewalls, NAC, certain video conferencing, Apple phones, and different security solutions. But Dell doesn't have such areas, Dell only has switching architecture.

On that basis, Cisco is still better, because whenever someone is actually moving towards Cisco products, they have to consider that they have certain other areas that they can invest in with Cisco. But if you consider the pricing of a Cisco switch against a Dell, Dell is definitely the winner.

I have used Cisco side-by-side with Dell and Maipu, and I found that Cisco is good. But if you compare Cisco's performance with these two, you will find that Dell and Maipu are not that bad. I wouldn't say that Maipu is that much of a product, but Dell is really performing well in comparison to Cisco.

Considering the performance, I really chose Dell. But when I have to consider that I'll have to move forward on the next project with certain security integrations, I have to consider Cisco. That is mostly the reason I considered Cisco. Otherwise, Dell would definitely have been the winner.

If you are considering going for a Dell or Cisco or Huawei, even certain other products out there, Dell has really good performance, and Huawei is also doing really well. ZTE is there, certain other organizations are there. But I always pitch good solutions for Cisco. I do that because Cisco has a variety of products, and Cisco has an enterprise-class solution. 

Whenever we are providing solutions to our customers, we have to consider security. On that basis, Cisco has a variety of security products. They have IAC, they have good sandboxing with Threat Grid. They have a benchmarking monitoring system. Then they have ESA and WSA. They have FirePOWER. They have a major cloud system security for Talos. Whenever you find Cisco is not actually putting the emphasis on perimeter fire-walling, they are saying "Save your endpoints. Secure your network. Monitor your network." Do surveillance.

On that basis I find, even if you go through the incident case analysis globally, you'll find that most of the incidents in the last eight or 10 years are happening inside a network. We need to focus on the internal user network. Cisco has a really good option, a one-dashboard option for maintaining and surveilling your entire network. So I give my customers a Cisco pitch, for that reason.

Overall, I am really happy with the 2960G switches, 2960-XR switches, but not that fond of 3560 switches and 3650 switches. And I am really a fan of 3850 switch, considering its performance.

We primarily use the solution for switching. Some devices are used for ethernet connections. Some we're using with our data center. For example, it's what's in use in the data center. It's got quite a few different applications.

I work in security with various switches and routers, and I find the product, without getting into too much detail, quite secure.

It's a stable solution.

We find the product to be scalable.

The device itself is quite good and reliable.

The security is very good.

Its implementation is quite simple as there's good documentation you can reference. 

The cost of the product is a little high. They should work to lower it a bit.

There's a ban on my country and therefore I can't get Cisco support if I need it. It's not allowed.

I've been using the solution for more than 15 years at this point. 

In terms of stability, the solution has been reliable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is pretty good overall.

For our purposes, the solution has been scalable. You can expand it if you need to.

We have more than 1,000 people using the switches. 

We tend not to have to worry about dealing directly with technical support. If we run into issues, we tend to reference the technical documentation and that always has included any information we've needed to find the answers we need ourselves. 

That's important as Cisco does not offer direct support to my country. We are banned from getting support services delivered to us.

I'm also familiar with Huawei devices.

That said, we only really technically deal with Cisco switches.

The installation of Cisco is easy. They have great official documentation and have a good design overall which makes it easy for everyone who needs to run the installation.

It takes about five to ten minutes to install a switch for our technical personnel.

The team that can deploy and manage the switches include ten to 20. That includes managers and technical support people.

The solution can be a bit pricey. That said, I can't speak to exact pricing as a different department handles licensing details. 

We are using various versions of the solution. We don't just use one kind. We have many different ones.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution to others. Cisco is a large and technical company. A switch that is just as good with less trouble is Huawei.

That said, I've had no issues with it and would rate the product at a ten out of ten.

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches for the office network.

It can be expanded.

The integration is quite easy.

While it is scalable, it could be better.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than two years.

We are using the latest version.

The stability is good. We have not had any stability issues with Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a scalable product.

We have 450 people in our organization who use this solution.

We have no plans to increase usage at this time.

We don't have any issues with technical support.

When we report a problem, we receive the assistance we require.

Positive

We also use ATI.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

The configuration is easy.

The installation took less than an hour.

You can do the installation yourself.

This solution is being maintained by a team of three people.

The licensing, and maintenance fees are paid on a yearly basis.

You can also choose between a three-year and a five-year licensing fee.

When you select the longest subscription period, you will receive a discount.

No

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the LAN and WAN.

Configuring the solution is very easy. It's quite a straightforward process, and it's not difficult at all.

The solution has proven itself to be very stable.

We've found the solution to be quite scalable.

The initial setup is quick and simple. Technical support is very good.

You need to have dual powers, dual power points for each to take into account the redundancy.

Compared to other switches, the Cisco products are expensive.

I've been using the solution for a long time now. It's been ten years. It's been at least a decade.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash and freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it out, it can do so with relative ease.

Everyone in our company uses the solution. We have about 4,000 employees currently.

We do plan to continue to use the solution going forward.

Cisco is available for support. We've been satisfied with them overall. I have no complaints.

When I started with this company, they were using Cisco, and they've used Cisco since then. I do not know if any other solution has ever been used.

The solution was not complex to set up. It was very straightforward and simple. It's a hot spot, and therefore everything happened very quickly. The experience was very good.

It took our IT department about three hours to set everything up for us.

We have 11 IT personnel in our organization that are capable of handling maintenance and deplyment.

I'm just an end-user. Our IT department handled the installation and it was very simple. They didn't need the assistance of consultants or integrators. They handled it in-house themselves.

The price is higher, however, I would argue that with the price you are getting a lot of value for money. That said, compared to other switches, the Cisco switches are expensive.

We pay a yearly licensing fee to Cisco.

We keep changing the version as it comes in. Every time we are going a new installation, we do the new modem.

Cisco switches are superior. They're a robust product. Therefore, I would rate them at a nine out of ten overall. We are very satisfied with the technology. 

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

We are a solution provider and Cisco switches are one of the products that we provide to our customers. It is primarily used for datacenter networking.

These switches are flexible and user-friendly.

Installing and configuring these switches requires the proper training.

We have been selling Cisco Catalyst Switches for three years.

This product has very good stability.

The scalability depends on the design, not the product.

Based on our demand, we will continue supplying these switches to both new and existing clients.

We also work with Cisco Nexus switches.

The installation is straightforward for somebody who has been trained. Somebody has to have the training to properly configure and work with it. It cannot be used out of the box by somebody who is unfamiliar with the technology.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the size of the environment and the number of switches.

We deploy and maintain this solution for our clients. We have a team of between 12 and 15 engineers.

This is an expensive product.

There are different versions of these switches, where some of them have licenses and some do not. The subscription is often renewed every three years.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We pretty much use the solution primarily for everything that connects to a network. For example, we use it for user work stations or some endpoint equipment.

The solution is quite stable.

We've found the product to be very easy to use.

The solution is extremely flexible.

You can scale the solution by simply adding another device.

The solution is very easy to set up.

The solution is expensive. They should work on their pricing model to try to make it more affordable for customers.

I've been using the solution for more than a year at this point. It hasn't been too long.

We haven't had any issues with the stability. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. It's been good. It's a reliable product so far.

The solution is not stackable. To gain any kind of scalability with the solution is just about adding another 2960 Catalyst device. IN that sense, you can scale it however you like.

In our organization, we have about 3,000 users on the solution.

I've never contacted technical support and therefore I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are.

I did use Ubiquiti switches at one point in time, however, they were not enterprise-level products. They were more designed for small or medium-sized organizations. It's hard to compare the two.

The installation of the solution is not complex. The implementation is very, very straightforward. If you have a prepared configuration, a basic configuration, for example, it takes about, 10 minutes to configure the switch. Installation is just plugging power into it, and connecting it. It's very easy. You don't need to be too technical.

We had three people that handled deployment and maintenance.

We do plan to increase usage. We bought some more devices at the end of last year. We're just waiting for them to arrive. It's my understanding that the 2960-Plus is going out of sale this year. Therefore, we'll have to find some replacement series if we want to buy more switches.

I've handled the installation myself. I did not need the assistance of anyone. We didn't need to hire consultants or integrators.

The solution is a bit expensive.

We use the Catalyst Series 2960 or the 2960-Plus and some L3 switches for distribution-level switches, such as the 3850, which are out of sale and at end-of-life now. We're using the current versions of the solution for the most part.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.