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. 

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. 

We use this solution for banks in the private sector. They use it to connect their headquarters to multiple branches with the SQL connection. They previously used different technologies, like MPLS, so we offered Cisco SD-WAN and did the project using this technology.

We are a system integrator and Cisco partner and usually sell products to customers. So we have different use cases, not only in Cisco SD-WAN but for other products. So the use case often differs from customer to customer.

The availability of services and combining different connections is most valuable.

Cisco should pay attention to the software as we recently found some bugs. There should also be better integration with other third-party software for the SD-WAN.

There are some features I'd like to see in the next release, and we have them for the Cisco account manager. First, we would like a single sign-on to be supported on the SD-WAN. Integration with third-party applications, like Active Directory, is not available and is also very important. They should also enhance traffic monitoring.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about a year but are not using the latest version. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution, and I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten, and we have approximately 150 users from different departments. We may increase our usage depending on customer and business needs.

The technical support is very responsive and helpful, and I rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We've used different technologies from different vendors. Some customers preferred the SD-WAN from Cisco, and some preferred other vendors.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, and it is straightforward. The deployment time depends on the use case and the number of branches and connections. It could take two or even three weeks because you may have the migration from a new to an old system. First, we had to prepare for the deployment, vulnerability design and migration plan. We then had to migrate branches one by one and check the services. The deployment was also completed in-house, and one person can complete it.

Regarding price, it should be better than S3 to be more competitive than other vendors. I rate the price a seven out of ten, with ten as very high and one as low. The licensing is annual.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten and recommend it to others.

When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly. This feature enhances operational efficiency by centralizing control plans and policy management, making applying SD-WAN features across numerous devices easier. The central policy enforcement feature is also highly beneficial, particularly regarding network security. With this feature, security policies can be defined centrally, streamlining security management across the network. Another valuable aspect is the improved link utilization, which previously took a lot of work to implement. It enables granular control over link management, quality of service, and application prioritization, enhancing overall network performance. Furthermore, integrating APIs facilitates automation and simplifies routing, a previously unattainable capability.

Cisco should develop a clear roadmap, ensuring seamless integration between Meraki and Viptela. Simplifying the definition and implementation could add significant value, as it can be complex due to multiple product integrations and customization requirements.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for two to three years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We work mostly with enterprise companies such as banking institutes. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

Cisco's technical support services are always good. They are always present whenever we need their assistance in resolving issues.

Positive

The initial setup is more complex than other vendors but relatively easy. I'd rate the process around seven out of ten. Regarding deployment, it's mostly on-premises. Once the initial configuration is set up, deployment takes little time. Once policies are configured, onboarding is efficient. Even for hundreds of branches, deployment can be done in weeks.

The product is not too expensive. It is competitive considering security features. The licensing cost is typically based on bandwidth subscription. For example, you must purchase a corresponding subscription if you have a bandwidth range of one to five Mbps. While this may seem insignificant for smaller bandwidth needs, it can add up for organizations with multiple links. It's worth noting that some other vendors, like Huawei and Fortinet, don't charge for bandwidth subscriptions in their SD-WAN solutions.

SD-WAN has significantly improved our customers' network management. It brings a lot of efficiency, particularly through automation. Instead of manually configuring each device, we can utilize a centralized management platform to push configurations and manage devices. It enhances operational efficiency and provides better visibility into network operations. Additionally, it facilitates the deployment of advanced features, such as gigabit capabilities, which might otherwise be challenging to implement.

The scalability and flexibility of Cisco SD-WAN have brought significant benefits to our clients. From a business perspective, it has led to better management and improved quality of service for applications. Optimizing application performance and enabling multiple applications hosting on servers with enhanced quality has played a crucial role in enhancing service levels.

The traffic management capabilities play a crucial role in optimizing SD-WAN performance. With different types of circuits like MPLS, Internet, 4G, and 5G, organizations prioritize critical applications for reliable service. It optimizes application traffic across the most suitable circuits. It offers traffic optimization and error correction to enhance throughput and ensure efficient traffic flow even in link quality issues.

The integration into infrastructure has impacted IT overhead and costs. While there is an additional pricing model for the subscriptions, its efficiency must also be considered as it adds significant value. It is not a hardware-agnostic platform requiring integration with Cisco hardware. However, since many of our customers already use Cisco products, the migration from non-SD-WAN to SD-WAN was relatively seamless, with minimal problems.

Depending on their needs, if routing capabilities are prioritized, Cisco and Huawei offer extensive routing features, making them strong contenders among SD-WAN vendors. However, if security is a top concern, Palo Alto or Fortinet are worth considering. Cisco's solution is particularly robust in routing, boasting a significant market share.

I rate it an 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. 

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is secure segmented traffic. Cisco's micro-segmentation products are being used.

It is very simple to deploy. It's a point-and-click type of deployment, so it's fairly simple.

They have taken away our ability to do what we are good at, which is working on the CLI, the interface right on the router. 

They have limited the commands so much that troubleshooting is nearly impossible. 

They should work on their troubleshooting, in my opinion. 

They should do a better job of allowing more troubleshooting on local devices.

There are a few things on the roadmap. It is more about the specifics of how the product works than extra features. Some things don't work in the product that they are working on. It is quite good, in my opinion. It is very good.

We are currently in the process of fully deploying our Cisco SD-WAN, which was formerly known as Zetella but is now simply Cisco SD-WAN.

We started the deployment two years ago.

We are working with the latest version.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

Cisco SD-WAN is very scalable.

We have approximately 15 users.

We used Cisco support to assist us with the deployment, and they made it very simple for us.

If I had to do it, or if we had to do it ourselves, it would have been extremely difficult.

We attempted to use Cisco IPAM a few years ago. It was extremely difficult to install and even more difficult to maintain, to the point where we just scrapped it and deleted all the VMs because it was so difficult to install and maintain.

We have F5 in the environment, and I used to be an administrator for F5.

We used GTM as well as LTM. I don't actually maintain them in this role, but in a previous one, I installed and maintained LTM and GTM.

I have also used Riverbed's Suite product.

SteelHead produces acceleration products. In addition, they have a software suite that manages end-to-end traffic. You can see the flow from beginning to end.

I worked with SteelHead for five years. We removed this solution because we disliked it.

We haven't had it in a few years, but I don't recall the last version we had.

The initial setup was fairly complex, but we used a third party. 

It is expensive.

I don't have exact figures, because we have an enterprise agreement, we basically pay one lump sum for a variety of products.

If one is the cheapest, and five is the most expensive, I would rate the pricing a four out of five.

There are additional expenses, such as hardware.

I would strongly advise hiring third-party solutions for this. Definitely outsource the initial installation and let them guide you in the right direction. Do not try to reinvent the wheel.

If you find the right company, they will have done it a hundred times before and will be able to retrofit it to your specific request and needs.

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