The solution as a whole has hardware quality issues. Even in small cases of lightning some ports will stop working and require RMS or other support to recover. We constantly run into hardware issues. The solution also lacks a dashboard to display session monitoring in order to view the switching-based attributes that require close watch.

In terms of support, they could be better. 

They need to enhance their vulnerability assessment and security features. 

There are latency issues that need to be addressed. 

Extreme Networks does not have any entry-level products. This is a problem for them because Aruba has an Instant On series, which is new and cost-effective. Cisco also has the 1000 series, and other brands offer entry-level products.

I think Extreme can learn a few things from Cisco's approach. That is not to say that trying to become Cisco would be an improvement for Extreme. It is just that they might acknowledge the differences in the direction the solutions have taken and maybe learn from what Cisco does right. They are different even though they set out to accomplish the same thing.  

To call Extreme wrong for their approach would be like telling people in Great Britain that their drivers are bad because they drive on the left side of the road. They have been driving on that side of the road and that's what they chose to do. They are not going to just go and change it one day so they all drive on the right side of the road. It would be a pretty big undertaking in adjusting to it. I do not think that is going to improve Extreme's product to try and imitate Cisco. Making that kind of a major change is not something you should do just to be like another product and it would not be a way to improve what you do.  

I would say that they could learn from what Cisco does right. Extreme needs to improve on their training. They have been working on it, but they do not really have enough training classes and learning resources for users at this point. When we first put ExtremeSwitches in, it was very complex. I think that might have been because no one had any real experience with the product and people were more likely to be familiar with Cisco if they did have experience. The training was not up to speed.  

Extreme aught to take that into account and at least offer more resources to learn the products. If engineers are coming from the Cisco world, it is really like pulling your mind through the looking glass or driving on the other side of the road. It is just a totally different way of thinking. Cisco had a 12-year head start on the market. More people see switching from a Cisco perspective.  

Other than offering training, they are getting better. When I have a problem, I can at least look up a solution online. But with Extreme Switches, if you look online, you are just not going to get as much information and options as you do with a search for problems on Cisco. Everybody and their brother could tell you stuff about Cisco because they are familiar with it.  

In some way, it is a benefit to have less information. When there is not as much stuff out there, then you have less stuff to sort through. With Cisco there is so much you might have to determine where the reliable resources are. With Extreme the resources are more limited but sometimes that means that you will not get the answer you are looking for.  

Sometimes there are some issues with the hardware, however, it is not very considerable. 

We noticed over the years that the price of the Extreme Switches has been rising and this will become a concern in the future. Down the road, when I'm going to upgrade, when I purchase new Extreme Switches to refresh my current aging ones (which are already seven years plus old already), I'm worried about the pricing. It may require us to look into another product. Extreme should keep more to the pricing that is on a competitive level.

While technical support is okay, it could always be a bit better.

We would like to see better monitoring in the future. We'd like to see, for example, the ports that are having a lot of heavy traffic. We'd like to identify sources as well or identify what is the application currently running through that particular port on the switches.

The GUI could be better.

They should have proprietary protocols, like UTP or Cisco protocol VTP. If that was available, that would be ideal. That way, users can just configure and go. We could configure one switch as a server, and it should push the configuration on all of the switches. This would be good and bad as Extreme does not recommend this configuration. 

Their pricing could be a bit cheaper, as Huawei switches offer better pricing. 

The delivery time right now is too long. 

In the WiFi system, there are some systems where we cannot access the WiFi devices, controllers, et cetera. Some of our customers, after one year, need us to contact Extreme, and I have to delete the software from the management software. They become a little problematic. And then, if they do need to be replaced, there is a delay in the delivery there as well. 

Experiences with ExtremeSwitching depend on the customer. It keeps changing, but it has a high capacity, with more throughput and more ports for data centers. For regular customers, it is extremely good. We must go with increased capabilities and throughput for SMEs and data centers.

ExtremeSwitching switches are not prevalent in the industry, so it's harder to go online and research how to deploy their APs or switches. There is a broader user community for Cisco and Juniper because they've been around for a while and everybody has a bit of knowledge they can publish online.

All the solutions in this market are lacking cyber asset attack, surface management. It's not just Extreme, but Cisco, Juniper and Arista as well. The new multi-access age is upon us. In other words, billions of sensors and billions of IOT devices are all wirelessly connected and therefore cellular 5G communications, wifi and broad-spectrum communications are missing from the edge platforms. As a result, we're doing well with DOD and enterprise customers, because they have their Extreme core switches, but the switches don't understand cellular 5G, broad-spectrum. We provide value in that space. We offer the opportunity to go through APIs and integrate into wireless technologies. It's missing from the platform. 

ExtremeSwitching has many features but having come from Cisco environments, there is a steep learning curve to learning all the functionality.

Their support could definitely be better.

The interface could be improved. Over the last few years, there have been acquisitions. Due to that, that, inevitably, there were some difficulties to get one management platform and keep it simple. Therefore, the interface, the user interface, the graphical user interface mostly, can be improved. 

In general, it's good enough. Maybe they should have an on-premises solution since some customers don't like cloud solutions, and the analytics is cloud-based only.

The initial setup requires assistance. 

The licensing is expensive. 

ExtremeSwitching hardware lacks flexibility compared to some other options. 

It could be cheaper in general.

I believe they should be more aggressive in terms of pricing. That is most likely the only thing they need to work on.

They must work on pricing because you are competing with industry leaders such as Cisco, Hetty, Aruba, and Juniper. In terms of pricing, they need to be a little more aggressive in terms of switching. Because the Indian market is very price-sensitive, they must work on this.