Scalability is nice. 

The scalability of Cisco Wireless has benefited our customers. We love Cisco 1900. It has all the features from the previous controllers. The way that the architecture is built in the box is massively more scalable than the old one. We can spread processes over different resources using tags. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Our customers are small, medium, and large enterprises.

The solution scales easily.

The number of users varies. Some days we have court cases and then you have jurors, lawyers, the media people. It varies widely. I would say on average, we have possibly 200 people a day on a slow day using it. And then on an extremely busy day, it could double that.

We use the solution quite extensively.

We do plan to increase usage, however, it won't necessarily be with this product. We'll probably like to go with a different product based on price and licensing.

It is very easy to scale. The controller license that we currently have can handle 500 APs, but we have only 50 to 60 APs. We can just add APs and go on. We should put only 80% load on a device, so when we reach 400 APs, we need to add a controller.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is used for around 3,000 to 5,000 devices.

Right now, my company has opted for a product from another vendor, Huawei, to increase the use of the same functionalities provided by Cisco Wireless.

It's scalable, but there is a break-level replacement cost.

We expanded seven years ago. If we want to expand further, we'll have to replace our controllers and add new access points. So expandable? Yes, but it's pricey.

It is a scalable solution.

A few hundred people use the product in my company.

My company will probably increase the number of users for the tool.

Our environment typically involves serving approximately 5,300 users daily, with an average of over 3,000 devices connected at any given time. The tool is scalable. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

It is scalable and easily expands. 

We have been coving entire countries with a single deployment. We have a huge number of devices - likely tens of thousands. There's a swarm of incoming IoT devices, plus everyone who has a corporate phone is basically connected to the wireless.

My company has so many brands and so many plants and factories. We are a multi-Latina company. We have brands in Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, Dominican Republic, et cetera. Our inventory of Cisco equipment is almost 300 to 500 devices. There are many series there. The new branch has 91 or 92 Wireless, however, they also have old series such as the 12,000 series. It's old, too old, however, this year we are planning to fix that.

It's so scalable. For example, if I update the series, I don't have to change all my environment. I only have to change the parts that I need.

We have 5,000 employees on the product. All of them use wireless. For example, we use wireless for daily operations of the factory. 

We do plan to increase usage. This year we are planning to open a new warehouse. They are going to need a Cisco solution. Even at this moment, we have the design, or we are checking the design. We maybe will buy the solution in next month or two. That is the roadmap.

Everything in the cloud and the cloud printing are working find. 

The solution is suited for medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

It was better than other APs in terms of wireless equipment and performance.

Along with the isolation measures, students and teachers started using Zoom and video sites like YouTube much more, which is when the wireless system started to show its limits.

After ten years of having the same system, we essentially started again from scratch when it came to upgrading. We looked into scaling up with Cisco Wireless, but unfortunately it would have been too expensive for us.

The tool is easily scalable. Smaller companies would not be able to afford the solution. They should choose products like Aruba and Meraki. I don't recommend Cisco for smaller companies.

It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around 2000 people in my company use the product.

Regarding scalability, our organization, being a public sector entity, didn't face scalability issues as we were already optimized. There were no plans for expansion or increasing device numbers.

I would describe the solution as scalable. If a company needs to grow it out they can do so pretty easily.

The tool is easy to scale. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have 2000 users in a single location. A user can have four to five devices.

The solution is easy to scale and if you have the latest wireless controller, you can really extend the coverage and extend the APs.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, but that depends on the definition of "scalable." I can deploy it at two offices and I can scale it to 200 offices. However, when you integrate the access point and the controller with the DNAT across multiple sites, you need a DNAT cluster, which is a costly solution. Every site has a controller, and a DNAT cluster is not a good option in a global framework. It's okay for a small office or a few offices. But when you're talking about 500 offices, the cost becomes enormous. We're using Cisco Wireless extensively right now because none of our offices are on the wired network, and we have roughly 25,000 users.

Before COVID, the emphasis was primarily on wireless connectivity in specific areas like conference rooms. However, with the shift to remote work and increased mobility, coverage areas needed to be expanded to accommodate users throughout the entire location. We are beginning to expand our infrastructure. 

The solution is good for expansion. We cater the solution to enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

I rate Cisco Wireless' scalability a nine out of ten. My company has 5000 users. 

It is extremely scalable.

The solution is scalable. We have not had any congestion issues.

We have over 5,000 users using this solution. Will would increase the usage of this solution if more users need access.

It can scale into whatever level I want to go to. The actual wireless is quite scalable. Scalability is not any trouble.

Two people in my organization use the product.

The solution is highly scalable. I have about 60 access points and it is scalable with a thousand access points.

Cisco Wireless seems to be pretty scalable. But, again, they do an excellent job of saying exactly what the coverage will be. And so we have to make sure that when someone wants to add things they understand what it means. Do I have to resurvey that whole area? Because they'll say, it was just wired for wireless access, not location tracking. So now I've got to go in and check my density and things like that. It's very scalable, but when you shift gears sometimes, you have to do more work than people anticipate.

We have around 4,000 to 5,000 users on the solution. 

It is easy to scale as it is centralized. You just need to add more access points if you would like to expand the product.

The solution is scalable.

I can add more access points if needed, Cisco Wireless is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 3,000 users using this solution. We are using the solution extensively.

I wouldn't say Cisco Wireless is scalable. I would definitely recommend a more cloud-based setup, like the UCS, which we have for a call manager. It should be on that the lines. So let's compare Cisco Wireless products to other networks that have a cloud-based solution where you can manage thousands of lacks of access points through a single interface. In Cisco Wireless control, we have to log in to each and every appliance, and the clients can support a maximum of 6,000 or 10,000 access points. So it isn't scalable. You have to install a different box. And from an administration point of view, it is a very tedious job to check on each and every control. We have around 30 or 40 controls in our network. 

We have six medium and large businesses as customers for Cisco Wireless. We have integrated it with multiple solutions. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution has good coverage and people can have access quickly.

We have approximately 700 students with Chromebooks connecting to the network.

The solution is extremely scalable. Cisco makes it very easy for a company to expand the offering if they need to. It's a good selling feature.

It is scalable. We are currently looking at the scalability so that we can provide the infrastructure to some other blocks, as well. I haven't tried it yet or discovered what problems I'm going to face, but I think that it should be able to scale. I think we will be able to do that, but I'm not sure right now.

During peak time, there are around 5,000 or 6,000 users. Now, in COVID-19-like situations, there are maybe a hundred or 200.

We don't have any plans to just switch to another product because we don't have that flexibility. We will just go for open tendering. We will make some generic technical aspects of the product and throw it in the market. Everyone will be invited. We can't just ask for Cisco only. That's why I was worried about their price because if they are the most expensive we will not pay them if they qualify.

Performance issues.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

It is scalable. There are no issues with scalability. We have approximately 5,000 users.

The scalability of the solution is excellent. Wireless used to be a non-critical part of the network earlier and it started with speeds as low as 11 Mbps. Now you're seeing the speeds of five gigabits with Wifi 6. Wireless is an innovative technology, and it has been changing. Scaling is something we need to do very frequently to meet the demands for higher speeds, higher bandwidth, and higher coverages. 

You need wireless expertise during the design phase, but I think a typical network engineer with fundamental knowledge can take care of day to day operations quiet easily. Once it is deployed and implemented, the operational costs are very low.

Cisco Wireless is scalable. 

We've found the solution to be quite scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it's not a problem.

We have about 200 people using Cisco Wireless right now. 

The scalability isn't the best. It doesn't give us the coverage we need. There isn't good mapping for the wireless and the access points.

We have about 600 people who are using our access points.

We likely will be increasing usage in the future.

The solution is scalable. It is great because if you have an enterprise, you can deploy the solutions with the network controllers physically or with the Mobility Express you can make a cluster without the controller. We have 20 to 30 clients and at our main office, we have 200 employees which use the solution wirelessly.

The solution is scalable, however, it becomes expensive. Organizations should keep that in mind if they are searching for a solution that can expand in the future.

It is scalable. We have around 2000 students and teachers using it because we are an educational institution.

I'm the IT manager. My role as IT manager is managing the whole technology results.

We require three staff people for deployment and maintenance of Cisco Wireless - a network administrator and two IT specialists.

The solution is highly scalable.

We have approximately 1500 users using this solution.

The solution is scalable and we have 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The solution is scalable, it is easy to grow the infrastructure. We have approximately 10,000 uses using the solution.

This solution is extremely scalable. If we're talking about any solution that has a cloud-based infrastructure, I assume it's scalable and as a network architect I don't need to worry. If the solution is on-prem, like we have now, I have to worry about a potentially slow infrastructure, network, interfaces, capacity. On cloud, the only concern is internet connectivity. We have over 30,000 employees and they are all end users. 

The coverage of Cisco Wireless could improve.

It is scalable enough. We have a 13-story high-rise building, and I have two wireless controllers to serve the entire structure.

We can easily scale it up. We currently have 50 access points, but I can scale it up to 60 or 70 if necessary.

Cisco Wireless is a scalable product.

This solution is used by 300 people.

The solution is scalable. The scalability is interdependent and associated directly with our client's needs, budgeting constraints, and reach.

We've had no issues with scalability. We initially started with two controllers; as far as a failover we used technology called N+1. But N+1 did not suit our environment because we have about 750 access points throughout the campus. E1 access point can only hold 500. If that ever happened, it would mean another 250 would be hanging out there. So we changed that to 1:1. We now have four controllers. Now we're able to handle up to 1,000 access points. So scalability wasn't a problem. And, if we have to have more we could still do it. So scalability is very seamless.

It's scalable, and as the company grows each year, it requires the network to grow as well.

We have 100 access points and approximately 300 to 400 users in our organization.

No issues encountered.

The scalability is nice. 

We have about 10,000 to 12,000 or so users on the solution right now. 

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage. We are already 100% covered. 

None encountered.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 3,000 users using the solution simultaneously in the supermarket network and it can scale upwards to 100,000.

The solution seems to be scalable and meets our needs. We have about 150 people using the product in our organization.

We've had no problems with scalability - the intra-network is about 20 gigabytes on our campus without any issues.

Scalability is good with Cisco Wireless - we have close to 500 users at just one of our sites and no problems. 

We have added some access points for conductivity which have integrated well and have been fine scalability-wise, we have not done other types of scaling. Our whole company is using this solution.

Cisco Wireless is very much Scalable, based on the forecast you have and the controller you choose. It's just about adding the license.

It is scalable. Pre pandemic, we probably had about 1,100 people. Post pandemic, we probably have a quarter of that because most people work from home now.

It is scalable. We can easily upgrade. We have around fifty users and we require two engineers for maintenance. It's used on a daily basis.

Our clients on the university campus have a plan to increase their users.

The solution is scalable.

We use this solution for medium enterprises. 

It is very scalable.

For Cisco Wireless, you need to have Cisco access points and a Cisco controller to get it running, but if you want to expand your infrastructure in Wireless, you just need to buy a new AP and get it installed. It's pretty easy.

No issues with scalability.

You can scale the product easily. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

More than 100 users are using it in our organization.

I'm not sure if we have plans to continue to use it or not. That's more of a management decision. However, I would be happy to keep using Cisco, as it is a very good product.

For the moment, I haven't had any issues with scalability.

None.

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

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

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.

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.

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

It is scalable. Our clients are large companies.

The solution is scalable, it has many features for scaling that you can use to control many devices.

Cisco Wireless is good for small to medium-sized businesses.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

We have approximately 2,500 people using this solution in my organization.

No.

Cisco Wireless scalability is good.

We have approximately 500 people using this solution in my organization.

We have plans to expand the use of this solution in the future.

This solution is scalable. 

The solution is very scalable using the options of the cluster-ID for the wireless. You don't have any limitations, even with one wireless controller. I haven't seen any limitations. It's very scalable and extendible. Performance-wise we can extend beyond the wireless controller through the FlexConnect feature. It's great.

On-premises, we typically have about 500 users.

Currently, our capacity is enough, so I don't foresee us expanding the solution in the near future. We'll see what happens after the COVID lockdown.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, and we have more than 10,000 people on-premises who are connected to the cloud using it.

The scalability of the product depends very much on the customer and their needs.

At this time I have approximately ten customers, including the Airport of Thailand.

The project was sufficiently scoped from the beginning which prevented any scalability problems.

The product is scaled for 500 APs. At this moment we have little under 450 APs connected without any scalability issues.

The scalability is okay. It's limited by the controller though. If we need to expand the solution, we need to buy new controllers, which will make the solution more expensive.

At this site, we have around 2000 users. Cisco is used everyday.

Our company has no more than 500 users, so scalability isn't an issue for us.

It's scalable.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

From my experience, I have found Cisco Wireless to be scalable.

The solution is good for all business sizes.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless is good.

We have approximately 300 users using the solution.

The scalability is okay. It's more or less affected by the infrastructure design as it is based on coverage. When we need to expand coverage, we will have to just add more.

No issues were encountered.

Cisco Wireless is scalable. We have many users. We have guests that come in who have contractors, which brings our user amount to approximately 5,000.

It is quite scalable.

The scalability is good.

This goes back to properly planning your deployment. The smaller WLAN controller’s don’t grow well.

From a scalability point of view, there is a cost component which needs to be looked at and reviewed, but from a technical scalability point of view I think it ticks all the boxes.

It has very good scalability. 

We had to upgrade our access points. It's had been about six or seven years that those had been in. Scalability-wise, some of the old iOS is not supported on the new controller, but that's fine. We accepted that and we now have two products. We now have a 3800 deployed.

No issues encountered.

The solution is certainly scalable. 

No issues with scalability.

Since it's a very small controller, I was already prepared for a small deployment.

None encountered.

In our organization, there are roughly about 500 people using the Wireless. They vary from entry-level to senior management.

We have close to 600 users in our organization who are using this solutoin.

This is a scalable product.

No issues encountered.

The solution is scalable. In our organization, we have more than 120 users. Our customers have more than 1,000 users.

We have never had an issue with scalability with this product. Our customers are medium to large size organizations. We have found that small businesses discontinue using the solution more often than larger companies who tend to remains using it.