Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

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.

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.

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.

Viptela is one part of SD-WAN that can give you an internet connection with the help of stacking. You can create a stack in the environment called a TLOC. With the help of TLOC, you can configure your ISPs in one bundle, giving you the network's resiliency. The best part is that you will get a few connections immediately onto your network.

If one of your ISPs goes down or has latency in your environment, Cisco SD-WAN will detect the issue and explain why the ISP is down. This is the solution's best feature, as it allows you to monitor your ISP links very well from their side. The solution's configuration is easy and not that hard. The solution's central management allows you to raise cases and get support.

The solution should be more user-friendly.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

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

The solution's technical support team supports you on your tickets region-wise.

The solution's initial setup is neither very simple nor too complex. Someone with good network knowledge can easily configure the solution to their environment.

Cisco provides the best support, and that's why most people are using it. Cisco is a brand right now that provides a fast solution for networks. Cisco SD-WAN is a cloud-based solution. Users who want the best support can choose Cisco SD-WAN.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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.

Our company uses the solution to migrate from dedicated to our NPL, connect over the internet, and provide either dual ISPs or redundancy. We have about 500 users with no plans to increase usage. 

The solution sufficiently provides ISPs. 

The solution should improve its manageability.

The solution should not be so bound to ISPs. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The scalability is always handled prior to our work with customers. Keep in mind that the scalability is not very large in Portugal.

We do not need technical support for normal issues. 

Neutral

The setup is not straightforward but not complex. It is somewhere at the halfway point. 

We don't implement the solution but just follow up on existing use cases. The solution tends to have a large setup and the deploy time is between three to six months. 

One or two of our resources can handle ongoing support for customers. This also depends on customer participation and whether we are providing joint support. 

I also have experience with Fortinet and Palo Alto. 

I don't really like the solution so I don't position it by design. I only follow up on existing use cases. 

I do not recommend use of the solution and rate it a six out of ten. 

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.

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. 

We use the solution to interconnect the branch network.

Cisco's performance is very good. The branches that we installed went on smoothly. We operate with no complaints. When it comes to management, it's simple. One PIN will allow us visibility into everything. Another thing is troubleshooting; we can see the issues quickly, dig down, and know exactly what the issue is.

Since the new one comes with the included IPSec tool, we don't have any security issues. It's already covered because all the data is fully encrypted between the branch and the office.

Cisco provides visibility. We can see the performance of the branch. Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue.

The user interface needs improvement. Users should be able to find various features faster without much tweaking.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN since 2019.

The product is stable. We don't have any downside so far.

Cisco is very stable, whether a branch network or the branches. We don't have any issues with them.

Seven members of the team interact with the solution.

We haven't encountered any issues with scalability when adding more branches or refining the solution.

We interact with them whenever we need access to the services.

Positive

I have used SilverPeek. It is made for the end user, not for technical engineers. It is easy to deploy and has better visibility of how the network is performing than Cisco.

I have used both solutions. I have evaluated some other solutions. Technically, all the SD-WAN solutions work the same, so it depends on the organization. Cost is a factor. Cisco is on the higher side but is stable. There have been a few upgrades.

The initial setup is straightforward. Initially, it may seem a bit complex, but overall it is straightforward.

Deployment typically takes from four to six months to complete. Additional time may be needed, especially if issues with procuring hub routers were not included in the original plan. Developing the actual network implementation plan may take around six months. However, the actual migration process after that is quick. It usually takes less than three months to migrate the network fully.

We work with three guys from the internal team and four from vendors.

From a technical perspective, we used to experience failures, especially when using two service providers where data wouldn't come up if one link went down. We no longer encounter that issue. We're able to utilize both links simultaneously. Thus, we haven't faced the necessity of quick upgrades as we did when relying on a single link. Having one link operational at any given time was less elastic.

Cisco is expensive.

We need to renew the licensing after three years whenever updates are required. These licenses are valid for three years. There's no longer a need for routine physical maintenance of the devices, which is typical for network devices.

We initially faced some challenges with sizing and acquiring the necessary devices. We encountered some issues with missing hub routers. However, once we overcame those obstacles, we involved Cisco professional services. They assisted us in creating the low-level design and supported the initial site deployments. After that, we were able to proceed independently. Our corporate professional services team guided us through the process and helped us develop the design.

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