The solution is fairly scalable. There are approximately 44,000 users of Cisco Wireless WAN on the campuses, while in the dormitory areas where Meraki is installed, there are approximately 2,000 users.

The tool is scalable. However, it is not as scalable as a cloud solution. We had around 2000 users.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

We have approximately 200,000 users using this solution. We have no plan to increase the number of users.

I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten. It is not extremely scalable. 

We have around 500 users and around 800 or 900 devices. Some users have many devices. 

The product can scale quite well.

Perhaps we made the right decision as we knew beforehand how much we needed to use through bandwidth, number of users, and number of VPs. We did our homework. We knew which product type/model we had to buy and deploy. That ensures that scaling is easy.

We might have 2,000 to 3,000 users on the solution, depending on the day. They are mostly students.

We likely will expand usage. We're running the next wave of installing extra eight pieces for delivering more coverage, and in a way also more bandwidth or throughput.

It's scalable. I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

It is scalable.

We can scale the solution. It's not difficult to do so. 

We are a global company and have between 50,000 and 90,000 users. 

There are plans to increase usage in the future.

It’s a scalable product.

In the future, the goal is to migrate to a new Cisco access point version. We are working on this. We have the requirement for a wireless controller, maybe, and an update only on the firmware version.

Maybe 400 people use the solution.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

It is a very scalable solution, we are using it in an organization with more than 100,000 users.

This product is scalable, although we have no plans to increase our usage at the moment. We currently have 300 users.

The solution can scale hugely if you are not using the embedded wireless controller, which is what I am using now. 

We can scale the solution as needed. It's not a problem.

We have more than 1,000 users on the solution.

It is scalable. Right now, it has only one series of controllers for all the numbers of access points, so in terms of scaling, we can always increase the controllers even if we have thousands of access points.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company caters to the needs of small, medium, and enterprise-sized companies.

There are no restrictions on scalability. It is a scalable product. We have 150 access points, and there are 350 employees.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution.

We have 50,000 students using the solution.  The solution is used often and we plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

It is very scalable. It's easy to expand.

We have about 3,000 employees that use the solution.

The setup is in an airport, and we have passengers that also need the portal for the internet. We have a lot of people using the solution.

You cannot go to different versions or different access points. 9115s cannot interact with 9120s, and 9130s can interact with 9115s. You can add or remove as many subordinates as you want. It's not an issue. It's completely logical.

The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky. It's licensing costs incurred, but technically the solution is very scalable. A total of 5,000 users are using the 3000 access points, and 2,600 users are using 800 access points. I am the architect and the rest of the users are basically university students, faculties, administration staff, and support staff who mainly use for media, social net access, corporate file access, academic system access, and learning solution access. And it used for radio-audio frequency wireless tools.

It's easily scalable. That's not a problem at all. 

We have an access point that provides service for 20 to 25,000 customers, and we use ten staff for deployment and maintenance. 

The solution is scalable. Meetings can be scaled with ease.

We do have plans to increase the usage of Cisco Wireless WAN. 20 is the upper limit for the number of access points that we plan to purchase for deployment in our company. 

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution. You are able to purchase as many licenses as required.

I have worked with this solution in large environments. We have had clients with approximately 2,000 users.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

It's very scalable. 

The solution can scale if a company needs it to expand. 

We do want to expand usage. We're looking into 2025 already and are looking for what will meet our future requirements. 

I have found the scalability to be good. We have approximately 200 people using the solution in my organization and we have plans to increase usage.

There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost.

Its scalability is good.

Cisco Wireless LAN scalability is good. The smallest of WLC can handle up to 250 APs and the highest WLC can handle up to 6000 APs.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have around 1,000 users on the solution currently.

The scalability is okay. A company can expand it if they need to.

We have over 700 people using the solution currently. They cover all types of roles and at different levels.

We likely will increase usage in the future. I already issued a purchase order to make an incremental increase to the current wireless resolution. That will be something like 5% or 7%.

We have deployed this solution across the country, and anyone who is in the kingdom can use Wi-Fi for free for two hours. We have thousands of users.

We will be deploying more Cisco products because the integration is easy, and our core is already made up of Cisco.

I think we used the smallest controller hardware solution, which was more than enough for us. But it's not scalable. It's okay because we don't have more access points.

The scalability potential of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

If I look just now at my area and the locations I'm responsible for, we have more than 2,000 users. However, we use the product globally, and if we look at it from that perspective, we have more than 20,000 users actively using it every day. Of course, with COVID, and people now working from home, it's likely less at the moment.

This solution is scalable, but it's expensive to add licenses.

This model of Cisco Wireless WAN has good scalability. You can have ten of thousands of people using it.

We have approximately 4,000 users of this solution globally. The solution is used hourly.

The product is very good quality with high scalability in my view.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 70 people using it in our organization. 

The scalability is very nice and we don't have any issues with it. We have about 500 users across the entire staff. They work in HR, admin, production, operations, and other roles.

I would rate Cisco's scalability an eight out of ten. It is a scalable product.

Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable. We have around 200 users. If we need more Wi-Fi coverage, we can purchase more equipment and add another access point. 

The product is scalable because we can create a mesh network using multiple devices. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

I believe the solution is scalable and it is easy to add more users.

We have about ten thousand users in our environment.

We run different hospitals and on a daily basis and we have between eight and ten thousand clients.

This solution is scalable.

We have twenty thousand users.

It is scalable enough for most of our clients. We have many users and don't have issues or problems with scalability.

No.

The solution is scalable.