Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

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 have numerous use cases where it can optimize cost savings, particularly in terms of connectivity. By avoiding the need to backhaul traffic through expensive central locations, organizations can achieve significant cost reductions, avoiding unnecessary capital expenditures.

The most valuable features, application awareness, and failover resilience, stand out as key considerations for users.

As the majority of our applications now reside in the cloud, there's a growing need for solutions that revolve around cloud-centric policies. Currently, the convergence between on-premise and cloud policies lacks centralization. The platform that seamlessly facilitates the translation of on-premise policies into cloud-compatible equivalents would enhance efficiency, ensuring that policies are consistent and stable, regardless of the hosting environment, allowing for smoother service delivery. An area for improvement lies in enhancing the integration with the security functions of the SD-WAN.

I have been working with it for a year now.

The stability of the system is quite robust. Initially, there might be some minor challenges, particularly in the first couple of months, regarding certificate issues.

The scalability is highly efficient. When operating on-premises, scaling up involves a comprehensive analysis of the architecture and the provisioning of service resources. The scalability is directly linked to the provisioning of these resources. In terms of licensing, there is a notable benefit as Cisco now offers free licensing.

The technical support experience has been consistently positive. If there are any delays, they are minimal, and the overall efficiency is commendable. Notably, the support structure allows for direct engagement with the assigned support personnel without the need for multiple escalations. Opening a case typically connects me directly with the responsible assistant, avoiding the frustration of having the case passed through various levels. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Having worked with both Fortinet and Cisco, a notable distinction lies in the user experience. Cisco offers a more sophisticated and customizable experience, particularly evident in meetings. However, Fortinet excels in simplicity, making it a preferred choice for those who prioritize ease of use. In terms of customization, Cisco stands out, providing a more granular approach, while Fortinet is considered more straightforward and suitable for users who prefer a less intricate setup. The choice between them depends on the specific needs and preferences, with Fortinet being a good option for a straightforward approach and Cisco offering more advanced customization possibilities.

The initial setup involves a learning curve that can be steep, especially for local professionals who have direct access to private campuses like OneTrack. However, once you become familiar with the process and navigate through the online procedures, you'll find that it becomes more straightforward and kicks off smoothly.

As a new contractor, the deployment process is expected to take around six months, approximately half of which will be dedicated to virtualization and fine-tuning.

While the initial deployment costs are undoubtedly high, the significant monthly savings are notable, particularly in terms of operational efficiency and online-centric functions. The achievement is at least a thirty percent reduction in overall costs.

The initial cost is quite significant, but the investment is worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The product helps to aggregate network links. The tool increases security and makes it possible for you to have remote workers. 

The product needs to have more understanding staff in their support team. The tool needs to provide support in every stage of deployment. We did not get the expected support from their team. The product is also not easy to use. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The product is stable. 

The product's initial setup is difficult and you need Cisco personal to assist you with it. 

The product's license is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. If you have the money, then you should go for the product. The tool's performance is good. 

I'm in Indonesia, where I use Cisco SD-WAN for DC and DRC to communicate with bank branches. One customer uses traditional simple routing via VGP or SPF to communicate to the head office data center or disaster recovery center. Still, I proposed using SDN technology, Cisco SD-WAN, to improve the application experience, have visibility to the provider link, and communicate directly from the branches to the application, such as Microsoft 365.

The customer also wants to access an application in the cloud from the branches, which requires a proxy, so the traffic goes to the data center and then to the cloud. You can directly connect all components to the cloud with Cisco SD-WAN, so I've implemented the product for the customer.

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is direct internet access, including onboard security. Customers don't want just a simple routing. Customers also want a firewall and IPS feature from Cisco SD-WAN.

One of the benefits of Cisco SD-WAN is cost reduction for customers. In Indonesia, it's costly to use NPLS and Metro for connection, so I always propose using an internet link to communicate between branches to the data center or disaster recovery center. Cisco SD-WAN can provide that service; the product also keeps traffic secure. Some customers may be afraid to use the internet link or connection to communicate between the branches and the data center because of some critical applications, so it may not be the best practice for some customers.

However, as my company is a partner of Cisco, I give the customer the PLC first before providing the solution, and I have customers happy about what I propose, in this case, Cisco SD-WAN.

If a customer wants access to cloud-based collaboration apps, such as WebEx, Google Meet, Zoom, and Teams, Cisco SD-WAN can integrate with Cisco Umbrella for cloud security.

With Cisco SD-WAN, customers can enjoy cost reduction. Customers also don't need to use a third-party DNS or process security solution because Cisco SD-WAN integrates with Cisco Umbrella. This is how beneficial Cisco SD-WAN is to an organization or business.

The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN include the DIA and its integration with Cisco Umbrella for DNS security.

One area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is reporting. The report needs to give more visibility to the customer. For example, the report should provide API information. I have a customer who wants to integrate the application via API and wants a summary of the utilization, branch links, and all internet connections on Cisco SD-WAN. The product has a monitoring menu, but it's very simple and needs to be more detailed, so that could be improved.

The security feature in Cisco SD-WAN also needs improvement, particularly if Cisco wants to challenge other brands, such as Fortinet. Fortinet has a firewall layer with an IPS feature, plus it can also run SD-WAN within the same box or device, while Cisco SD-WAN has a limited firewall and IPS feature, which could be improved.

In the next release, I also want to see more flexibility in the product when integrating with other infrastructure or monitoring solutions.

My experience with Cisco SD-WAN is around two to three years. Just last week, I implemented Cisco SD-WAN for one of my customers.

I found the stability of Cisco SD-WAN good enough.

Cisco SD-WAN has good scalability, so I'm giving its scalability an eight out of ten.

I'd rate the Cisco SD-WAN technical support team as seven out of ten because my company had difficulty getting the best engineer for a partner and a customer.

Neutral

Some customers need more detail about Cisco SD-WAN, so it takes a long discussion before the product is implemented, but for a customer that knows Cisco SD-WAN, at least how it works, signing up for it and implementing it takes three to six months. Sometimes, completing the deployment of Cisco SD-WAN takes one year if the customer requirement is complicated and challenging.

For simple routing, Cisco SD-WAN is easy to set up. It's an eight out of ten. If you're setting up the product with some security features, then the setup would be more complex, and that's a three out of ten for me.

The last time I deployed Cisco SD-WAN, mainly for three hundred to four hundred cases, the deployment took six months to one year.

I deployed the product for a bank, so the deployment and maintenance should not disrupt the production, which means it takes more time to migrate the current connection or the current infrastructure to Cisco SD-WAN because my team also needs to build the data center and the RC, and then migrate the traditional link with Cisco SD-WAN, and refresh the router at the branches. For three hundred to four hundred cases, that required many field engineers, about fifteen engineers. The bank also had project and implementation teams, but I have no idea how many people made up the teams.

I implemented Cisco SD-WAN with fifteen engineers, plus implementation and project teams from the bank.

The ROI from Cisco SD-WAN is good for me, so it's an eight out of ten.

The pricing for Cisco SD-WAN is more expensive than other brands or solutions, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks, so it's one out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN also doesn't have flexibility using bandwidth tiering licenses, while Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet have more flexibility with the licensing.

One customer is on a three-year subscription, while another chose a different type of subscription and tiering license. Customers only pay for the standard licensing fees.

I'm a pre-sales engineer, but only for Cisco products, such as Cisco DNA Center, Cisco SDI, Cisco SD-WAN, and other Cisco technologies.

I implemented the latest version of Cisco SD-WAN for a customer.

I deployed Cisco SD-WAN on the public cloud for customers, but I'm unsure if it runs on AWS, Google, or Azure cloud.

Cisco SD-WAN requires two types of maintenance, on-call and onsite. Three engineers handle onsite maintenance during office hours—two from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and one from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM. There's a second or backup engineer on standby that handles troubleshooting for the customer.

In each bank, Cisco SD-WAN has many users. Based on how many panels or bandwidth each bank uses, I'd say one bank already has two thousand to two thousand five hundred.

My rating for Cisco SD-WAN is eight out of ten. Despite needing some improvements, the product is already good for both customers and partners and is competitive enough.

My company is a gold partner of Cisco.

I work for a global telecom operator. I'm a system integrator. It's deployed on cloud and on-premises.

The most useful features will depend on the clients' requirements.

Cisco SD-WAN doesn't have automation capabilities, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and isn't IOT-based. There are a lot of technologies coming onto the market that Cisco SD-WAN doesn't have. I would like to see AI-driven capabilities.

It should be more cloud-based and compatible with all the clouds.

I have used Cisco SD-WAN for seven years.

Sometimes there are issues on the routing layers. Most of the time, the protocols don't meet the compliance standards. If one site is Cisco and another site is Juniper, then there is a mismatch in the protocols, so there is latency. If all the sites are Cisco, then it's stable.

I would rate the stability as six out of ten.

The scalability is good. I would rate it as seven out of ten.

I would rate technical support as eight out of ten. They're responsive, but many of the people I speak to don't have a lot of technical knowledge.

For new telecom companies that have a 5G or 4G setup, there are other service providers that they can contact.

Initial setup is easy. I would rate setup as seven out of ten. 

It depends on the sites, the connectivity, and how many tunnels there are between various planes, like the control plane and management plane.

The cost is reasonable. I would rate the price as seven out of ten.

Huawei has their own cloud, and they don't have any dependencies. The best part is that there isn't a lot of tactic latency. Cisco doesn't have that kind of feature. Huawei is more advanced compared to Cisco.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

When you want to access cloud applications, or you want to have secure connectivity at a branch or hub location, it is quite useful. If you want to have a local breakout that is also possible. If you want to do a load balancing or even you can optimize the ISP to cost as well, you can do that. These are the benefits. We can even integrate security as well. This is an all-in-one box solution.

The product is very good. The information is accessible, and the integration is also easy.

It is stable.

The solution scales well.

It has a very good GUI.

The interface is straightforward. 

We find it very simple to deploy.

If a user needs documentation, it's readily available. 

I cannot speak to what areas need improvement. 

It's an expensive solution.

I've used the solution for one year. 

I find the solution to be stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is scalable. You can expand it as necessary.

It's a great option for enterprise-level organizations. 

We have multiple companies using the solution. They range from 500 to 1000 or so.

The response is pretty good. The solution they offer depends on a case-to-case basis, however, their turnaround time is pretty good.

The implementation process is pretty straightforward. 

The administration of the solution might need two or three people and they can work 24/7 to maintain it. Everything is remote. It's very easy to maintain. 

The pricing is quite high. There are other vendors that provide relatively low prices as compared to Cisco.

The cost depends on the number of devices and the application the customer is using. It is not a fixed price. It depends on the bundle. It varies on what application you wanted to use. 

There are other options available. Each OEM has its pros and cons. What is acceptable depends on the application use case. Cisco is positioned pretty well in the market as compared to its competitors.

I'm a consultant. We are Cisco resellers and partners.

For new users, a POC would be required so that they can understand whether it is fitting into their requirements or not. Implementation is not a big deal here. The deal is whether will serve its purpose or not.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We replaced all our legacy routers with Cisco SD-WAN. The number one use case is more to do with network management, better policy integration, and keeping the policies consistent across all our locations. That was one of the major areas where we thought SD-WAN has reduced a lot of burdens so that the engineer can focus on actual issues. 

We were doing a lot of policy-based routing earlier for our hub and spoke topology. With SD-WAN, the hub and spoke, of course, stays. However, manageability, scalability, and ROI are the three major factors with which it has helped a lot. 

We could eliminate most of our expensive MPLS links, move them, do the local internet breakouts, and integrate with the NGFW firewalls. These were an added benefit to us. It was a tectonic shift. Right now, we are not spending as much on resources or engineers to keep the lights on.

The integration, scalability, and ROI that Cisco SD-WAN provided are the main features that helped the organization advance further.

The solution has helped us to lower expenses.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

It is very stable. 

We can scale the solution. 

SD-WAN itself is vendor locked in. At one point, Cisco should make it open so that if we have multiple mergers and acquisitions happening, it's easier to consolidate. Right now, if we are running Cisco, and the other organization in an acquisition scenario is deploying some other competitive vendor, the communication, the manageability of running two separate ESD instances, becomes a burden that falls back on us, especially the network administrators. It's better to consolidate and come up with better products, especially targeting AWS as their underlying transport.

Traditionally, what Cisco has done, is they have always considered internet gateways or links and the MPLS links as their transport technology. In some devices, they have also used ELTs. Now, since we have 5G in place, they could look at private 5G ELTs, and they could expand that line, again, particularly in the ESD space since AWS has recently released their own SD instance where they are allowing their customers to backhaul.

With SD-WAN being a very custom solution and a vendor-specific solution,  we would end up having multiple software-defined instances where one is running in Cisco, and one you are running with AWS, and then again tomorrow, another SaaS-based player or a similar player will come up with something else. 

For example, when two organizations merge with each other, there is likely a scenario where organization X is running (for example) Juniper, and the other organization is running Cisco. The administrators would end up having to separate ESD controllers. You do not have a single ESD controller that is open in nature, where you can manage Cisco and Juniper devices. That is a concern. So if the controllers were made open, with compatibility between the vendors, that would be a very good thing for the industry overall.

As a market leader, they are better positioned to go ahead and make that kind of change. If you look at the history of Cisco, before MPLS came into the game, it was Cisco, Juniper, and a few other vendors who came together and created a very good protocol. 

We need them to start focusing on the SD-WAN compatibility with other environments and not being so vendor locked with Cisco environments.

They should get better controllers that can especially talk with AWS and Azure. Right now, I have taken a subscription with AWS Project Gateway. I will have to place a Cisco CSR image if I want to make it a true SD-WAN solution. Instead of using a separate image, if they could make the Cisco's controller open or a transit gateway solution, that would be ideal. 

I've used the solution since 2018. We've used it for around four years. 

We found the solution to be quite stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't seen major issues. 

The product is pretty scalable. 

In terms of Cisco SD-WAN, we have close to 200, and that's a pretty big number. We have about 12 engineers around the clock using the solution. 

For the SD-WAN portion, we are getting good support. We have no major concerns about the level of attention we get.

Positive

I did do a POC with VMware, and it was not great. We struggled with configurations. I've also done a POC with Aryaka and have used Fortinet and Palo Alto, as well as Viptela. 

The difference between Cisco and other options is that you get a good number of engineers. Second, the amount of time required to troubleshoot the protocol level is lower. I'm using the word protocol on the operating system that gets loaded and comes with the software. They don't even have a proper support line, and the support will not be aware of the production issues. The other competitors are three years away compared to where Cisco is today.

The solution is very straightforward and simple.

We did engage with Cisco during the initial POC and rollout. Later, with adequate materials and training materials, engineers, and resource availability, we never ran into challenges. 

When I speak with my other colleagues in other organizations where they did use Fortinet, they did use other products, they ended up spending a lot of labor hours and only figuring out that near the end after they struggle with configuration.

I'd rate the setup a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation.

From a maintenance perspective, it's not that frequent. Every quarter, the manufacturer releases its own patches and updates, which we are following through its life cycle. That's very normal. 

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did not need to worry about getting help from outside vendors. 

We have seen a positive ROI and a reduction in costs.

The price varies. They have different products, including routers, some of which are now being removed or deprecated. The new platforms with the CSR 8,000 series have competitive pricing, and the kind of features they're providing justifies the cost - especially when you look at the number of features and support that comes with it.

I'd rate the pricing at a four out of five in terms of its competitiveness.

We are a customer of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.