Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is the standard configuration across all sites, facilitated by templates. This solution helps in the ease of management and compliance configuration, which is deployed everywhere. 

It also simplifies troubleshooting and provides full mesh topology for branch connectivity to data centers. All branch locations, along with central locations, are on SD-WAN and gathered in the data center. Many customers combine it with local Internet breakout for SaaS applications.

The valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN include its security policies and zone-based firewall that are applied to every site, as well as application-aware routing. Security is standard compliant, eliminating config drift that was prevalent before manual configurations. Application-aware routing offers flexibility in using different lines for traffic, depending on the policy implemented.

The main area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is the lack of documentation, which often lags behind the software releases. This is especially notable since Cisco acquired the solution and is still integrating it into its overall environment.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for the last three years.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten for stability. While some software-related issues and bugs were encountered, they did not cause the whole environment to crash. Sites were able to continue functioning, although there were limitations in making changes at those times.

The ease of configuration and features like zero-touch provisioning enhance the scalability of Cisco SD-WAN, especially in disaster recovery situations. I would rate scalability a nine out of ten. The initial implementation faced some issues, but it has improved with newer software versions.

The customer service and support for Cisco SD-WAN are satisfactory, rated as eight out of ten. 

However, Cisco's ongoing reorganizations have affected the quality of technical support, which varies depending on the engineer handling cases.

Before Cisco SD-WAN, I used traditional MPLS or eVPN, IPVPN networks. The switch was made for easier management and standard compliance, which is enforced by the SD-WAN product itself.

The initial setup involves getting the underlay and controllers in place to migrate from the old to the new network. I deployed in parallel, allowing both networks to coexist, and then migrated sites to the new central control plane.

For a complete project, we had two central administrators and designers, along with three or four teams managing the remote locations. The process took approximately one year to migrate about 280 sites.

The pricing for Cisco SD-WAN is rated eight out of ten, with some variability depending on the reseller discounts and the size of the enterprise. It is also relatively cost-effective for smaller businesses when using the Meraki version.

We evaluated other solutions but chose Cisco SD-WAN due to its flexibility, support for our requirements, and the preference of many of our customers who were already using Cisco-based solutions.

I would recommend working out detailed use cases and requirements before implementation. Cisco SD-WAN is quite flexible, however, without a solid foundational design, users might struggle with too many options, leading to a poor rollout design. 

Overall, I rate Cisco SD-WAN as nine out of ten.

On-premises

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is to connect multiple offices or branch offices across the globe or within a country securely. It facilitates branch-to-branch or office-to-office transactions and provides easy access to primary data centers.

Cisco SD-WAN is valued for its operational efficiency and ease of operation. It allows prioritization of packages based on production requirements, and integration capabilities provide comprehensive security. Integration with Cisco ISE, Cisco Firewalls, and other Cisco solutions is beneficial. Furthermore, it is appreciated for its insights, visibility, and ease of use.

Integration with other OEMs and the API part needs improvement to be more user-friendly, especially in terms of GUI. Including more features like integrating with Splunk for monitoring vulnerabilities would help eliminate the need for other SOC solutions.

I have been working with the Cisco SD-WAN solutions since 2018.

I have not faced any stability issues with Cisco SD-WAN.

Cisco SD-WAN is highly scalable and can be expanded to more than 10,000 sites, so there are no issues with scalability.

The initial setup is not straightforward, as it requires experienced personnel to size and optimize the solution. Otherwise, it could be costly.

For Cisco SD-WAN deployment, following Cisco's published best practices is advisable, starting with vManage and then adding all devices for better remote control.

Operational ROI is observed by cutting down internet and branch connectivity costs, while securely accessing hosted applications using various types of connectivity like 3G, 5G, or MPLS.

Cisco SD-WAN is a premium product priced on the higher side, however, its pricing is justifiable due to the comprehensive solution it offers.

I have evaluated Aruba and Fortinet SD-WAN solutions.

For enterprise customers with significant security concerns, Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is a recommended choice. It offers comprehensive integration under a single umbrella, which is advantageous compared to other OEMs. 

I would rate the overall solution as a ten out of ten.

Other

The main use case is WAN connectivity.

The features that I like the most about Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN are that it is secure, cheaper, and once you know it, it's easy to deploy.

An example of how these features have benefited our organization is that we have reduced latency and we can troubleshoot faster for packet loss and jitter.

I think Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN could be improved because too many vulnerabilities come up, so upgrading it is a challenge, and the hardware keeps changing; we moved from Viptela 1K to 2K, then again to the Cisco Catalyst router, so it's an expense.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN in our new company for eight years.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN scales with the growing needs of our organization at a level of eight.

I evaluate the customer service and tech support as good support.

Before adopting Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, a decision had already been made regarding the solution when I was onboarded.

I describe the experience with deploying Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN as initial deployment taking some time, but once deployed, it's easy to roll out changes.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is very tedious.

Cisco does not optimize the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup for us since we don't have hybrid; it's all on-premises.

We face no specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks because we don't have hybrid networks.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is that it is a managed solution, and while we reach out to our managed vendor for visibility, I think it is something we should explore more; during troubleshooting, we don't use that tool as much as we would prefer.

I give this review an overall rating of nine.

On-premises

Other

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is a software-defined network solution. I primarily use it for managing switches in campus networks.

With Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, I can automate processes, ensure network assurance, and configure network settings. The tool offers centralized management, which enhances visibility for both wired and wireless end users, and security with features like micro-segmentation.

I have used Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for five years.

I have experienced difficulties with plug-and-play deployments in older versions of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, but I believe this issue was resolved in the new release.

Stability-wise, the tool works well with no complaints about stability issues or technical errors.

The technical team is very competent. In my opinion, they are much better compared to Aruba, which is a positive point for Cisco.

Positive

The initial setup was challenging, especially for plug-and-play deployments, but improvements have been made in newer versions. Full deployment takes a few weeks.

I have used some competition from Aruba.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN eight out of ten.

We use the solution to do a lot of proof of concept to evaluate the deployment, manageability of the solution, application availability, scalability, and cloud. These include secure cloud security integration with Umbrella and software-defined cloud interconnect (SD-WAN) use cases. We also evaluate end-to-end segmentation use cases.

In general, Cisco SD-WAN is a scalable tool that simplifies network management. It can be a great way to transform a legacy network into a more standardized one, which can help reduce operational issues.

Over time, a regular network with different point solutions can become very complex. There are different vendors for WAN, LAN, cloud security firewalls, etc. Each device may be configured separately, and each region may have its own IT team with its own way of working. All of it has created silos over the years. If you want to make a change or a rollout, It takes a lot of time to do a risk and impact assessment because there are hundreds of teams and hundreds of devices. Every device and no team or no region has a similar type of configuration. There is no useability. There are no template extensions. Every device is configured differently depending upon the liking of the individual who has done it on the first go. 

However, with Cisco's SD-WAN, when you manage it through a central dashboard, you use templates, etc. You build that standardized configuration or discipline, for that matter, and you maintain it.

You have a common policy repository, and standard template, and use one template to configure 50 devices or one. If you have 100 similar devices, we do the same thing, which is very easy. It'll be too extreme, but it'll be far easier to understand that if I work 100 branches, this is how the branch organization will look. If I have 50 medium-sized branches or a corporate office, this is how the configuration will look.

The solution gives an immense opportunity for standardizing the network configuration. It reduces mean repair time, mean deployment time, and uses and predictability in operation. This will also improve your first-time deployment because the network is more predictive. Since I've been in the industry for 20 years, every time you make some change, you are 90% expecting one or the other surprises, which you'll have to deal with during the maintenance window. 

Cisco enhances these aspects by providing an opportunity to make networks simpler. Simplicity is crucial for multiple family networks, and Cisco ensures improvement without unnecessary complexity.

The cloud environment, including cloud security integration, is very valuable because of the many API integrations with the SD-WAN. This includes monitoring tools, ThousandEyes, and the programmability aspect.

In the transition from Viptela to Cisco SD-WAN, there have been very huge revision cycles in the last three to four years. This does not happen for a stable product. Still, it is because Cisco has been migrating from one vendor and merging into their own operating system and making a lot of additional development beyond what is required. This has made it tough for enterprise-level integrators cannot find downtime to keep up with the upgrades. Cisco is working to stabilize the product, which will likely be much more stable in the coming years. So, I would like to see revision cycles to be more stable.

Another area of improvement is the licensing and pricing model. The Cisco SD-WAN licensing model needs to be simplified. There are currently three types of licenses: enterprise agreements, individual licenses, and DNA subscriptions. This can confuse customers, requiring a dedicated person to determine which type of license is right for their organization.

Although Cisco is working on many features, the general usability of the templating mechanism should be improved to make it easier to use and understand. The various GUI elements are different, as in Cisco Vault. If I migrate from a CLI to a GUI model for managing devices, the GUI is still more like Viptela. The GUI should be more aligned with the Cisco CLI regarding terms and concepts. The tools need to be more intuitive to use.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for five years or more. We initially started with V19.2 and are currently using V20.9.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten. So, it's very stable.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten. It's fairly scalable unless you have the regional fabric aspect of a large network. So it's fairly scalable. 

Most of our clients use this solution. We are engaged with about nine out of ten clients; we are involved in that. They fall between medium and enterprise businesses.

It's an evolving technology with lots of changes happening and releases. So, it's the shared load of support requests that's causing the issues. But otherwise, Cisco Tech is very helpful. 

However, they might be offloading tech support a little too much, which sometimes results in situations where we do not receive the expected level of technical support and the right quality of technical support due to the outsourced model. They were already outsourcing, but now, with additional vendors outsourcing, it's causing some confusion.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a seven out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy to set up because there are two situations.

If it is deployed on-prem, the setup is a little complicated. It was not tough for me, but for a new company, it would be tough.

The setup is easy if cloud deployment is for small, medium, and a few large companies. Setup becomes a little complicated if you have an on-prem deployment and other use cases, especially for banking, financial, and government.

So, for all large specifics where you need a lot of security for banking and finance, we would go with on-prem deployment. But for others, we always suggest cloud deployment. So, with the controllers. So, that is the AWS, but that completely manages the Cisco. Therefore, we cannot state that it could be directed to Azure data because Cisco manages that. 

However, in other cases, when there's no specific cloud provider, we exclusively opt for clients. It entirely depends on what the client's workload is. Cisco is extending its reach to AWS, Azure, and Google, and perhaps in the future, there might be additional options. The major advantage is that Cisco can provide connectivity effectively. So, it doesn't really matter. We don't lean towards one over the other.

The deployment time for a proof of concept is typically 40-60 hours, but a full-scale deployment will vary depending on the size of the organization's network.

About 80% of the time is dedicated to data gathering and planning for any deployment. This step involves understanding the existing network vs. old transformation to understand the data-gathering process. 

Then, you create a high-level design for SD-WAN and discuss and explore different options, such as technology choices (fully managed, partially managed, peered approach), depending on the company's network profile, workload, and global or local footprint. These factors help to achieve a well-defined design. 

Once the design is approved, the next step is understanding the existing services and their hosting locations, whether on-premises, different sites, or cloud. A deployment plan is formulated to minimize downtime following a pilot phase to assess stability, a comprehensive deployment is executed.

The pricing is neutral. However, there is room for improvement in the licensing model. 

Take the opportunity to simplify your network while migrating. Since it is a new technology, and you do not simplify your network, you will end up in more complex situations than you were in the first place.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I am working on different projects and catering to various types of clients in the private sector, specifically for medium-sized businesses.

With Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, I appreciate the flexibility of its functions and the pricing. It offers various modules that can be changed and integrated with the core and other solutions. It also provides robust security features, including port security, analysis, mirroring, and multiple other security solutions.

The durability of the switches could be improved. In the past, Cisco devices had a longer lifespan. Now, they change frequently, making it difficult to obtain long-term support.

I have used Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for three or four years.

The first and second level of technical support, which is local in Peru, is average. However, the principal third-level support is very good.

Positive

The initial setup was moderately easy, rating between seven and eight out of ten.

The deployment was carried out by a team of four or five technicians.

The pricing of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is rated between eight and nine out of ten, where ten is the most expensive.

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN as it is a good product. It is suitable for medium to enterprise levels. I would give the overall solution a nine.

We rate customers' sites in four categories, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze. Depending on the type of site, such as how many connections or internet circuits, we gather information about the site and how it is operating and place them into one of the four categories. At this stage, we will migrate the legacy site to Cisco SD-WAN. We are using three different types of devices using a template for the customer's needs.

The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN are reliability and scalability.

The integration of Cisco SD-WAN with cloud solutions could improve. For example, if any of the applications are hosted in the Amazon AWS cloud we can use a virtual transit gateway for integrating Cisco SD-WAN.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for approximately five years.

The solution is stable. Other solutions provide better stability, such as Silver Peak SD-WAN.

I rate the stability of Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable.

Our clients are large enterprises. 

I rate the scalability of Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

The support is good from the vendor. When migrating some sites from China we have to manage some of the controllers differently I did not receive good support, and they took a lot of time to respond.

I rate the support of Cisco SD-WAN a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have used Silver Peak SD-WAN and Prisma SD-WAN. When comparing Prisma SD-WAN and Cisco SD-WAN, Prisma SD-WAN takes less time for the provisioning of devices to the controllers.

I have a lot of customers using Palo Alto hardware because of the support and discounts they provide.

The initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN is easy because I have been working with the solution for five years. The time it takes for the deployment depends on the environment as a whole and the connection to the legacy environment and the creation of policies. A typical deployment can take three to four months.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

We do the deployment of the solution. The number of people we use for a five-hundred branch site is four teams and each team has five people. The teams consist of L2 and L3 engineers and a reviewer from the project team. From the first day of deployment to the handover, it took one year to complete.

The price of Cisco SD-WAN is expensive. We pay approximately $50 monthly for the use of the solution.

I rate the price of Cisco SD-WAN a two out of ten.

We have a team of 25 people for the maintenance of the solutions.

I would advise others that Cisco SD-WAN security is not highly secure. It is best to use a SaaS solution, such as Prisma SD-WAN and Primsa Access.

If cost is not a concern then this is a good solution to use.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

On-premises

We use Cisco SD-WAN backup as a failover, from the MPLS circuit. We also use the solution at remote sites where we were going over cellular satellites to secure the data.

We deployed the Cisco SD-WAN FlexVPN version. At the organization I was at, the Cisco SD-WAN solution allowed us to reduce costs by getting off MPLS circuits and using a regular IP provider, cellular provider, or satellite provider for primary and backup networks. The SD-WAN solution cut costs and was well adopted by the IT department since most corporate IT departments are Cisco brand.

Cisco products are rated to handle the heat and are very rugged, making them a good corporate standard. They are slightly more expensive than some other products but are still an affordable corporate-grade solution. We have had some issues with the ISO versions of the SD-WAN, but the FlexVPN solution has since resolved them. Cisco SD-WAN is a good, solid product, but requires a certain skill set to use. We cannot simply switch from Peplink to Cisco as the two are different. The upgrade to iOS 11 has fixed any issues we had with the product, and it has been reliable for the past four years.

Cisco's management function has room for improvement, and I believe they have something for that now. At the time, the management of the device and the configuration of the device could have been more user-friendly, with a point-and-click or GUI style, instead of using the command line. We had to use the command line to configure everything. I believe Cisco has a management port.

The initial setup is complex and can be improved.

I would like to have stable, SBI, or IPS functions in the routers at our edge points.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

My first impression of the solution's stability was that it was quirky. We had some dropped sessions where the VPN session would just drop if we had a carrier drop and some sessions where the solution would drop the VPN session. It wasn't a virtual device; it was a piece of hardware in the data center. I saw it and had that drawing. The solution would drop the VPN sessions whenever they got too loaded because we had a priority on the session screen devices and they had an issue there. My initial thought was, "Why didn't we use something else?" After Cisco made changes to their FlexVPN appliance in iOS, it became really stable. We had a workaround for it, which was to tear down the session every few hours and round-robin the remote devices to set up the sessions. This would help to load balance the solution into the data center. After Cisco fixed their software, we no longer had to do that and we didn't have any issues because it would automatically shift the remote to set the load across all the appliances.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. The solution scales out very well. We just need the right product in our data center to integrate Cisco SD-WAN. For this particular solution, Cisco SD-WAN would scale out successfully. The amount of memory required is substantial, as we have many TCP connections that require a lot of memory. We also need a lot of processing files. Initially, the solution was lacking in this area, but it has since been improved. We used the solution for twelve hundred sites, while the company I was at previously had twelve thousand. They have since migrated to Palo Alto, although I have not used it. We were unable to use it on remote sites as Palo Alto did not have a hardware version. However, Palo Alto now has a hardware version, so we can use it in a controlled environment.

The technical support is good.

I had previously used a solution called SpamFeed Network, which is owned by ComTech EF Data, for application acceleration over satellite. It was Linux based on OpenSuite and had compression, security, and firewall features, as well as packet inspection if desired. It worked very well, but was extremely expensive, more than double the price of a Cisco solution.

The initial setup was complex. If we weren't familiar with it, we needed to be aware of the solution's features and set up our VPN connection. It was more cumbersome, but it worked out. Cisco has the best documentation that I have seen so far; we just have to read and find it. Cisco does a good job of making it available, but we have to be familiar with their product to understand it.

I've never had eight or nine people on a phone call before; normally, it would only be two. With the new security model, we need a minimum of two people: one in the data center to manage the firewall and one in the field to do the configuration and installation. We had nine people on the call because we had project coordinators, but this is not Cisco's best practice. This is how the younger IT people operate. I prefer to follow the Purdue model, which only requires two people.

The implementation was completed in-house.

There has been a return on investment since we began deploying Cisco SD-WAN in 2018, prior to the onset of COVID. They are still functioning, and they will begin refreshing their devices and changing them out at five years. They usually start changing the model when they are able to write off the product, and they typically acclimate over a three-year period or when Cisco discontinues the product. They are still hanging in there.

I give the price a seven out of ten. Cisco hasn't quite reached the top yet, from what I've seen. I didn't look at the price, but I'm sure VMware is more expensive than Cisco Verdi.

I evaluated Mushroom Networks, but they did not meet corporate standards. The company may have considered Cradlepoint, Peplink, or Mushroom networks, but they ultimately decided to go with Cisco or Juniper, which are more widely used.

I give the solution a five out of ten because there are some competitors that provide a better interface, which is easier to configure and requires less scripting. Cisco is slower to implement such features. Cisco has some better products with a management system and virtual VPN solution, as they have been doing this for a longer time.

Cisco SD-WAN is not quite as easy to configure, as Peplink or mushroom network. From what I can see on the Cradlepoint, we have to have a little more skill for Cisco. Cisco SD-WAN does work well and It fails over well. What I'd do is read due to the session to load balance at the time, but I think Cisco has since automated that. Cisco is a corporate standard and if it was my money, I'd probably not use Cisco due to cost. Cisco does actually have products that are more cost-effective than industrial products on the market, such as the Eagle30 product. Cisco is more on the high-end cost-wise. Cisco SD-WAN is not as easy to manipulate a program. If we're looking for people that are trained to administer Cisco, it is a lot easier to find compared to any other solutions even though the other products may be easier to install. A lot of people won't use them because they are not the industry standard.

We have to give Cisco credit. They have put a lot of effort into education, which I appreciate. They have excellent documentation on how to do basic configurations, which is enough to get our network up and running. That's what I like about Cisco.

Cisco SD-WAN is a good corporate solution that scales well. Cisco is prompt in providing fixes. They may not be instantaneous, but if we open a case, they are usually quick to provide a solution. We should opt for a product that has been around for a while; if it is a new product, we may encounter a few issues. We should stick with something that has been around for at least a year or two, such as Cisco. I can confidently say that Cisco is stable and is a corporate standard.

On-premises

Our company uses the solution to provide secure connections for customers. 

We have a hybrid data center model that bridges the gap between cloud and on-premises for customers. It is a mixed design to consolidate resources. 

We also replace expensive NBLS lines with SDN and the internet to provide cost efficiency for telecom business lines. 

We have quite a few customers who use the solution. 

The solution provides good consolidation, centralization, and manageability for edge routers. 

The user interface needs to be more friendly.

The solution should be more cost effective. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

The technical support is excellent and perfect. 

The setup is quite straightforward and the solution is easy to deploy. 

Deployment time depends on the size the customer or enterprise. Each customer has its own use case so it is difficult to give a time estimate. In any case, the work is straightforward with no obstacles or challenges. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The solution is quite expensive so it is important to enhance its cost efficiency. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a seven out of ten. 

Hybrid Cloud

Other

My client wants to use SD-WAN to reduce their line costs. By using SD-WAN, they aim to lower transport costs and better use internet traffic and bandwidth.

Clients use SD-WAN, which encapsulates the packet into a VPN tunnel. This allows them to be ready. In SD-WAN, the internet line is generally much cheaper than other lines. For example, they can use DIA to access internet traffic. With strong encryption, such as TLS or IPsec, they can securely send business traffic over the internet at a lower cost.

It depends on the customer’s requirements. In our area, Taiwan, we help users build SD-WAN. They are only using SD-WAN for transport. They want multitasking and QR code functions enabled.

Customers collaborate with ISPs and currently work with three ISPs, using options like LSM VPN and MPLS VPN to reduce line costs. They are considering moving from their current setup to an MPLS VPN and might also consider using a DIA line for internet access. However, due to government regulations and audits of internet access, they are cautious about using an internet line. They are still deciding which bank should be the first to implement this change.

If I want to improve the SD-WAN in the future, they might consider integrating it with technologies like SignalR and SRv6 into the SD-WAN control plane. This would enhance functionality, such as SRv6 video capabilities. They can simply use an SD-WAN solution based on SRv6.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

I rate the solution's stability as eight out of ten.

It is scalable. 8200 users are using this solution.

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

Our banking customers trust Cisco. I work for a company that serves these banking clients, and we provide Cisco's CX service to help them build their SD-WAN solution. They purchase the product and the associated service, and the Cisco team assists with the deployment, making the process straightforward. It takes a couple of hours to deploy completely.

The product is expensive.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution as five out of ten.

On-premises