Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Cisco Ethernet Switches.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
Cisco needs to include new features to attract new customers.
Cisco has a layer three rugged switch. I don't know if they have it. The one I use is layer 2 only. Cisco should provide field switches, outdoor switches that have the capability for layer 3. We've had hardware problems like SSDS, ports, networking, things like that. They should maximize the number of ports. For me, that's important because we have some sites that the industrial switches lack ports so we have to install two industrial switches.
The licensing needs to be improved. You have to know upfront what kind of license you require. If you want to check quality assurance then you need to use an IP-based license. You can get that done, but sometimes it's a nuisance. For example, if you want to run certain commands then they are not all available because it depends on your license. On the new switches, it is a bit hard to do the SPANning. The SPAN ports on the 9K series should be improved.
We would like to have the option of two power supplies on these switches. It is important for us because these switches are installed in our data center and critical departments. These units have to be available all of the time. I would like to see this solution automatically store multiple versions of the configuration file. For example, Juniper switches will save forty versions of the configuration, while Cisco will only store one. If you want to keep more than one then you need to make it manually. If you need to restore it then you will have to use the saved file to do that manually, as well. In the large switches, they do keep one primary image and the backup image, which is good, but it is not like Juniper. I can roll back to any version within the last forty that have been committed. It's a very, very nice feature that I would like to see in Cisco equipment.
The interface needs improvement. The solution could use more features and more functionality. The price could be lower. It's quite expensive.
Cisco has a licensing procedure that is very complicated and it changes every six months.
At the moment the switches that you have can't scale because they've got their control plane and data plane in the same device. The problem with that is you're limited to the number of switches you can string along because of limitations with VLAN. VLAN does have limitations, but with Software-Defined Networking there is no limitation. This is bringing about changes in the networking field that are long-needed. Ultimately, I would like to see all of the switches support SDN. Switches should be made stackable, even if they are not of the same model. Now stacking is another technology that a lot of switches can benefit from, but not all switches are capable of stacking. There are some switches that are capable of stacking, but not all switches. As a rule, in my view, I feel stacking should work between different switches and at the moment it doesn't. For example, if you want to build a stack, all the switches in the stack have to be literally the same. So that another area of technology which could be different. You could stack switches, even if they're not exactly the same, but they have a way of operating such that they can work together. It would be nice because it means people don't have to throw away things just because they can't meet what they want.
The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly. Cisco should offer different equipment. Some features which are needed at present, for example, require making ethernet loopbacks for testing purposes are not available. They need to offer something like this.
What I would improve in this product is simulation. You can simulate switches, but you cannot really simulate industrial Cisco switches. The ability to use industrial switches is missing and I would like to see compatibility with industrial switches. I would like to see an updated feature search toolkit. The ability to look for certain features and select the features that you want or need would help to target desired results and workflow. To know what a tool is able to provide for you and the devices that can be used with those features would make research and configuration a lot easier.
For Cisco, the interface between fiscal small business switches and the Cisco Catalyst or Enterprise switch is a little bit different. So, I needed to take some time to understand how this will impact the network if we plan to scale it in the future and to learn the different interfaces. I think it would be better for Cisco to unify the interfaces between their products. It might make it easier for users to use different models concurrently as different versions of switches and improve scalability. It is not really a feature of the solution itself, but I also think that the technical support directly from the company should be better in the area of handling integrations.
Lower the pricing to compete with Aruba and HPE. If they could provide a management solution for all systems then it would be an improvement. They have a product, but it's a license, and I have to pay for it. It is difficult to manage one hundred switches in many areas, without having a managing board. I would like a management product to manage both the small business and the Catalyst. In my business, I have all of these products and I have to configure them one by one, so the troubleshooting and the monitoring of each can be challenging. Also with a managing board, it would improve the scalability as it would be easier to handle the traffic and monitoring several users. This may be something that they are already working on, but it would be an improvement if they could add a layer of security to layer two and layer three to protect the server and to protect the data.
Pricing could be lower. It is difficult to look for additional features to be added because there a lot of different switches, different models, and usually each model is designed according to the number of ports. It's a satisfactory unit within the usage area for that model.
The dashboard needs some minor improvements. Sometimes it is difficult to find items, other times it is quick, it just depends. Most of the feedback we receive are not complaints but suggestions or ideas about the dashboard. The stability could be improved.