Cisco SD-WAN Reviews

We are using it for load balancing our network bandwidth. We haven't implemented it yet at any office. It will be done probably in a week.

Configuration interfaces are quite easy and intuitive. Being a part of the Cisco environment, Cisco SD-WAN is quite straightforward.

When you buy the equipment, they should already put it into your cloud account. It should already be set up so that we can manage with vBond. We came across an issue where it wasn't resolved in the DNS.

We are using Umbrella, so we need to create a VPN IPSec tunnel to Umbrella to enable the users to browse. I would really like to see an internal built-in firewall so that we don't have to go to Umbrella. This functionality might already be there. We are quite new to this solution, and we are still learning about it. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for a week. 

I would say neutral at this time because I am deploying this in an office this week. It seems okay in terms of stability. It hasn't crashed since it has been up.

I am pretty sure it is going to be high. At this point, it has low usage, but we will push it to the maximum of its capacity. 

I haven't contacted them.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to set up. Testing the deployment took a little bit of plug and play. I just plugged in two interfaces, and then it was in the cloud. It was quite easy.

We had a consultant who helped us with all this. He was perfect and knew everything. It needs two staff members for deployment.

I am going to see ROI because we removed MPLS sites. When you remove MPLS sites, you get some benefits on the monthly fee because MPLS always has a higher price. We are already seeing some improvement in the monthly fee.

It is going to be on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs.

I would recommend checking the exact amount of bandwidth that you really need. We have installed double one links for our office, but you probably don't need a gig link or a hundred mega link. 

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a five out of ten. I want to be in the middle because it is the first solution that we are testing. I don't know if it is the best or the worst. I have known Cisco, and I am pretty sure it is not the worst. They know what they are talking about. They have been working on networking stuff for a long time. I don't want to give a ten because I don't even have another solution to compare. 

To get a ten, a solution has to respond to our needs, and it should have good pricing because at the end of the day, in terms of routing and other things, all solutions are almost the same. It is the pricing that becomes the main factor.

The software for Cisco SD-WAN is overkill because the box is more powerful than required. Cisco needs to replace it with a normal router because the current one is very advanced. They expect a stable internet connection but then try to get sophisticated devices to connect to any infrastructure. However, the infrastructure requires only SIM cards, so it's not that difficult. Implementing a router and a dual-SIM router would be sufficient, but Cisco makes it complicated.

I cannot speak to additional features, but we've heard that Cisco may add analytics to the SD-WAN.

We have been using this solution for about nine months, and it is deployed on-premises.

I have not heard any complaints about the stability. The problem with this solution is with the interface, not the equipment.

I can not speak to the scalability, but we used Cisco SD-WAN for a big gas station digitalization project. The gas station had to be connected to a government-owned company and then deployed to 5,500 locations, so it was a big project. I believe a government-owned company currently completes the maintenance of the 5,500 locations.

Our company was just in charge of implementation and installation. I am unsure how many technicians they have, but the maintenance response is so slow, which may mean that the technicians are not well educated or trained about the SD-WAN. Regarding deployment, it took one person about two to three days to connect, configure and do the ATP.

The technical support is very responsive, but they lack resident experts. So they have to divert the support to Singapore or Australia. They should have experts locally to provide support.

The deployment is complex, and Cisco makes everything complicated. It took about two to three days to deploy, and the engineers completed it.

The solution is costly compared to Aruba. You also have to pay if you want to implement extra features like a VPN.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The Cisco brand is strong, and its connections to the government are also strong. Cisco has very good distribution and connections with universities, unlike other equipment manufacturers. In addition, they provide free seminars to government officials and receive allowances in return. Cisco does a great job managing its customers.

I believe Cisco and Palo Alto here in Jakarta and Indonesia are very strong compared to Aruba and Citrix. I last heard about Citrix when I worked with Nokia and Motorola ten years ago. Citrix only does password and computer synchronization, which is done from Singapore. Citrix also did not have local support about ten to 12 years ago.

Cisco has been around for quite a long time and gives a very good discount to system integrators if they try to sell their product. Although they have high published prices, the price for a distributor or reseller is very attractive with discounts sometimes as high as about 20% or 30%.

I am using Cisco SD-WAN for access to the internet.

Cisco SD-WAN could improve the integration with the cloud.

I have used Cisco SD-WAN within the last 12 months.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

The scalability of Cisco SD-WAN is good. 

We have approximately 2,000 people using the solution and approximately 25 of them are engineers.

The support from Cisco SD-WAN is good.

The setup of Cisco SD-WAN was easy.

There is a monthly subscription to use this solution.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

Some of my customers are replacing their legacy solutions with Cisco SD-WAN.

Encryption, which is native to the solution, is a valuable feature. Also, central management, onboarding of devices, QS, and routing applications are all okay.

All of the configurations are based on templates, and we need to spend a lot of time doing the templates. It's good because that means that all of the configurations will be equal in the network. However, we need to spend a lot of time implementing the templates and doing the customizations.

I've worked with this solution for about a year. It's a cloud solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is very scalable.

The technical support was okay.

SD-WAN is very difficult to implement, but nowadays, most solutions are difficult to implement.

On a scale from one to five with one being the most complicated and five being very easy to implement, I'd give Cisco SD-WAN a rating of three.

It is not difficult to maintain.

You should prepare to spend a lot of time with the design and implementation of the solution. The design in the cloud is difficult to do because you need to have all the connectivity in place to reach the cloud. It's very easy to spin up an instance of SD-WAN in the cloud, but the connectivity from on-premises systems to the cloud is sometimes difficult to accomplish because of the security features the customers have in place. It's not easy to establish connectivity from the enterprise network to the cloud.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco SD-WAN at seven. From a network perspective, it's a very good solution, but the security features could be better. It's not easy to manage security using Cisco SD-WAN. It's not clear; the solution is not related to security and is more related to planning and networking.

We are resellers and integrators.

It's a complete solution with many security features.

It integrates well with other Cisco solutions.

Customers require features that are secure for endpoints, on-premises, and for the cloud.

We could provision Cisco Umbrella to respond to the security requirements.

They need to make provisions in the platform cloud with tools. In the cloud environment, it is very easy to enable the solution with Umbrella.

They should configure to provision other devices and many endpoints to deploy the SD-WAN with security.

I would like a feature included for the prevention and inspection of data to implement. 

I have been working with Cisco SD-WAN for three years.

We are using the Viptela version.

We had issues with the stability only one time when we integrated Viptella SD-WAN with Cisco Umbrella. After reading all of the documentation, we have not had any issues with the stability.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable.

Cisco technical support is very good. They are responsive to my questions and send me all of the information needed.

They respond quickly.

We are also using Meraki.

Meraki is more suited to small companies, whereas Cisco is more for larger enterprise companies.

We have a hybrid deployment. We have clients who prefer the cloud and others who want an on-premises deployment.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

The time for deployment depends on the size of the company and its requirements. There are many factors. It can take two months to six months to complete.

We have a team of five people. One project manager, two specialist engineers, and two basic engineers, who maintain this solution.

Cisco is more expensive than FortiGate.

We also evaluated Fortinet FortiGate for our clients. For customers, it is mainly a decision based on pricing and technical options.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. Technical support is very strong and provides high-level assistance. They have knowledgeable technicians with engineers present.

Overall, it's a very good solution.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a nine out of ten. 

We are a solution provider and SD-WAN, Cisco's software-defined wide area network, is one of the products that we work with.

At this point, only one of our clients has implemented this solution. They are a bank that has redundant links in their branches.

The most valuable features are manageability, scalability, and simplicity.

We have had some problems with the licensing model, and it is something that should be improved. Specifically, Cisco has some bugs regarding licensing that they need to resolve.

Cisco's SD-WAN is a stable product.

This is a scalable solution. Our financial client has approximately 200 branches.

This was our first implementation of this solution and we didn't need to contact technical support.

I have used Citrix SD-WAN as well, although I have very little experience with it.

The process is well documented and the installation is easy. In our team, we have four people on the team to implement SD-WAN.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the environment. For controllers, it takes between two and three days to deploy. For individual branches, it depends on the situation.

We have an in-house team of four people for deployment and maintenance.

Overall, this is a good solution and I recommend it. The only complaint I have is that I would like them to resolve the problems with the licensing model.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

If I have to give a neutral view of all the SD-WAN platforms that I have known so far, Cisco is good in routing.

The solution does not offer WAN optimization.

We have found that their SD-WAN has a lot of scope for improvement.

For example, they can probably look at their security stack. They can look at including some features like WAN optimizing, which is currently not there as a part of their in-built SD-WAN features. That could make their device a full-fledged SD-WAN with a single stack or a single device, solving many problems. It would mean once a customer goes for a Cisco SD-WAN, he doesn't have to look at a second device in his ecosystem.

Cisco has got integration challenges.

The solution lacks advanced security features.

Besides a WAN optimizer, I would like to see if they can do something about the security, and maybe they could have in-built security features such as a firewall.

The cost could be better. Cisco is not great for the SMB market. These are price-sensitive customers and they typically will not go ahead with Cisco, unless and until they are a global organization and they have their entire ecosystem deployed on Cisco. Otherwise, Cisco is struggling to connect with these players as their pricing is high. They need to have better technology at a more competitive price.

The organization that I work for, basically, we have deployed it in our lab. We do testing of multiple OEMs. It's been more than two years, that we have been using Cisco SD-WAN.

I have experience with a variety of different solutions. I also have worked with
Versa, Fortinet and FatPipe.

The initial setup could be more straightforward. A solution such as FatPipe, for example, has a very easy setup. In that case, when it comes to the GUI, in four, five clicks, the entire network gets established.

The solution needs to be priced more competitively. SMBs won't even look at Cisco as they already know it will be too expensive. 

I've worked with other solutions and therefore have evaluated them a bit.

For example, FatPipe has an easier initial setup. The GUI is very simple, and the platform is highly, highly advanced, even as compared to your Cisco, Versa, or Fortinet options. 

What I see in Fortinet is more for firewall extensions, with some software-defined controls. While the functionalities of WAN Optimization, functionalities of a seamless failover are not there. There are some potential technologies that FatPipe has, that are not there in any of these OEMs. On top of that, it's a very simple to use technology for many customers. A lot of our customers have also given this feedback that technically Cisco, Fortinet, et cetera, might be big names, however, FatPipe technically is superior technology today, when it comes to SD-WAN. In terms of FatPipe, they have a single device that has routing, switching, load balancing, WAN optimizer, and FatPipe does full WAN optimization. 

Cisco also claims to do WAN Ops. Fortinet also claims to do WAN optimization. What I have found is that Versa doesn't have that feature at all. Versa needs to come up with WAN optimization feature in order to catch up.

Cisco does a basic sliding window and PCP, UDP, which is a basic level of WAN optimization, whereas FatPipe does sliding window TCP, UDP, caching, comparison, data application - all seven or eight techniques are possible.

We're both customers and resellers. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using at this time. I don't know the version number off-hand. 

Cisco is no doubt a great company in the routing area. Nobody can beat them or nobody can even come close to them. That said, to be very honest, in the SD Wan space, they are struggling. There are a lot of cases where Cisco is technically disqualified when it comes to pure SD-WAN. SD-WAN is the game of FatPipe. FatPipe is the one who invented this technology, and they have delivered SD-WAN since 2002. This company has more than 20 years of experience, from what I understand. Whenever you use these two technologies, you actually get to know that FatPipe in comparison to Cisco is so seamless, extremely seamless. 

Cisco doesn't have advanced security features. Cisco doesn't really do WAN Ops. It does packet duplicates. Technically, both do packet duplicates. If they have failover traffic from a primary to secondary link, they will duplicate the packet. Otherwise, there cannot be a seamless failover. FatPipe has patented technology that doesn't do packet duplication. That's the reason they save 50% of Enterprise bandwidth while doing a failover. On top of that, FatPipe is the only SD-WAN. If at all there is a video on the voice system that is going on in any of this other technology, it is bound to fail. If there is a glitch in the primary link, or the primary link is failing, FatPipe is the only technology that is able to hold everything down. The user will not even know that the primary link has gone down. That is why it's extremely unique and extremely compelling technology. It is something that no other OEM in the world has. Even Cisco can't touch it.

In general, I'd rate Cisco at a seven out of ten.

Normally, you use it for the internet connection.

The orchestration on the VPN connection between remote locations is a fantastic feature. I used it some time ago. 

The bandwidth limitations would be good to remove, but it is a policy and license situation for Cisco because the cost is very high. 

It would be good to have OTP implemented with VRF. It can have support for EIGRP Over the Top (OTP) VRF. I saw some limitations in regards to the VRF protocol and the advertisement between VRF configuration. EIGRP Over the Top basically was quite limited with the VRF configuration. If you wanted to do rollback in VRF by using the EIGRP OTP protocol, the formation was not populated across. Cisco got back and confirmed that it is a configuration that I need to wait for until the next release, which is going to happen in one year. 

Cisco documentation is not the way it used to be before. It just gives an easy way to configure, but it doesn't go into the details of the configuration. The information that you need is there, but sometimes you want to go further and get more information, but the information is quite limited. It would be good to cover a few business cases or configuration cases. They used to be there in the past.

I have been using this solution for around seven years.

It is good. There are some nice elements about it, but there are a few difficulties, and it is always an improvement process.

It is good. You can scale as much as you want, but you have a limitation of the license. 
You cannot go further than a certain number of licenses. I can only have 15 locations or so because it would scale the price.

Technical support is good and always handy to give the answers to the questions that you have about how to use it. They always find the issues and the resolutions of the problems that you have.

I am currently using Fortinet SD-WAN because it is less expensive. It is not as expensive as Cisco SD-WAN. That is the reason we switched from Cisco SD-WAN to Fortinet SD-WAN.

It is not that complex. If you concur with the previous configurations that you need to perform a VPN tunnel and everything related to it, then it is not that complex.

The deployment duration depends on how you implement it and the complexity of the connections. If you are having a full mesh configuration, it will take you quite a long time. It depends on the infrastructure that you need to connect to. For a basic operation, it might take you five hours.

I don't use any integrator or retailer at all. The way they have implemented SD-WAN is that they just provide the device. The devices are handed to me to be implemented and configured.

For maintaining the product, you just need to monitor the connection to the platform through the web portal. Overall, you need to dedicate two hours per day to assess the functionality of the devices and implementing them. It could be as easy as one day or five hours. It could also get very complicated depending on the configuration that you are doing. So, if you want to go fancy in the configuration, it can take you easily one weekend deploying the configuration. It depends on how complicated you want to go. I would say as long as you keep it simple, it will take you pretty much three hours or two hours for implementing it.

It is expensive. The license limitation is there in terms of bandwidth. Basically, Cisco is always good in terms of performance and related things. However, if you want to have a license, for example, for 100 Mbps, they charge you because of their 100 Mbps. If you want to go without the license of 300 Mbps, it is a bandwidth license as well. This is not happening with other vendors. That is the reason why we moved away from Cisco. The bill gets a little bit high.

I do remember that one time we were trying to increase the bandwidth for at least five devices, and the license got as high as 20-grand for five devices, only for the license. It was expensive for us at the time. Our company is not a big company, but it is a solid company. The price was very high, and we moved away from Cisco because of the price.

I would recommend it only if you have the budget to buy and implement a good solution with Cisco. Otherwise, unfortunate for Cisco, there are other vendors. They do the job pretty well. They are able to deliver what you require in the same way that Cisco does, but the price is going to be a little bit affordable for the company.

In my company, we don't have any plans of buying anything related to SD-WAN, but, in terms of personal growth, I'm planning to get more information and more knowledge about SD-WAN. There are a couple of courses that I could learn from.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a six out of ten. It is a good solution with SD-WAN, but it is not the best.