Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

This technology, in my experience, has a better adoption in companies where the concern for security in platform issues and data privacy is high. The reason for this is the data is protected with encryption systems, and that functionality is audited to meet certain standards.

This is in the context of SaaS because that is where I want to take customers. My option is the cloud with pay-per-use and better cost conditions. Also, companies with large IT departments and a high number of engineers have many reasons to use it.

This solution has allowed us to implement much more flexible payment models than the current ones. As such, we can better plan the budget that is needed for technology.

In addition to this, it has prompted us to see the cloud differently. We now look with more confidence since the orchestration is SaaS, which is why we do not see a compelling reason to avoid introducing more services in this format. We plan to stop investing in physical or virtual infrastructure, reducing our dependencies on data centers where we host services.

When we talk about SDN technologies, we are referring to user experience or customer experience. The complete solution is designed based on the services and the experience that we need our users to have with them.

This product offers the ability to utilize all of the access available in the market. Importantly, it does not affect the quality of the application. The best feature of this technology that is available to us is the ability to do better load-balancing. This is thanks to the deep inspection of the packets and of course, the forwarding of packets based on the application.

I would like to see features related to security compliance, including a view of compliance with standards. With this, I should be able to do an audit of my SD-WAN network.

In addition to having a network with an application-oriented intention, I would like to have a network that is oriented to security standards. I am only referring to the WAN network because with this, we can begin thinking about issues of virtualization. For example, access to SD-LAN where we can bring security policies with the user.

I have been working with Cisco Viptele for three years and more with the first version, Cisco IWAN.

Releases and updates/upgrades for the software in each component are not simple to configure.

The scalability is great when you have a mature template for configurations.

The Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC) service should be quicker to provide answers.

Positive

Prior to this, we used Cisco IWAN.

The initial setup is a little complex, especially for those with little experience in SaaS.

We used the Solution Support Partner Program (SSPP) from Cisco.

The ROI for this product in my organization is 18%.

This is not a cheap option but if you move from Capex to Opex, I expect you should have lower costs. I am talking specifically about Managed Services License Agreement (MSLA) model.

Fortinet is a solution that is a good option that is low-cost and much simpler. Meraki is another good choice for some customers.

In summary, this product is very strong when you need complex topologies to match the complexity of your services.

Initially, the primary use case was to lower costs, however, over time it has been to increase the availability of services according to the profile of the branches. 

Something very important is the security that this technology brings with it. We protect the data, we segment and give priority to what we need. In the same way, the possibility of being able to choose the underlay that I really need is great. Together with the type of service, the MPLS or Internet, is an advantage. In software-defined networks, the simplicity of doing things is its main characteristic.

It has allowed us to better understand the client's business. It breaks down a bit the traditional barriers of uptime and SLA and thus we are able to profile the branches in a better way.

Real-time traffic monitoring has become a fundamental tool for clients since it allows them to see what is happening in the moment and thus to be able to estimate trends or to project changes in a better and more assertive way.

The secure connection to the cloud is a gain when evaluating the traditional centralized internet links that generally exist in data centers.

Being able to see the traffic in real-time and know what application you are consuming, together with the possibility of taking your requirements directly from the cloud, has been useful.

Load balancing is a feature that allows us to take the best of our links and distribute the load intelligently, always with an eye on the end-customer experience.

Being able to prioritize, according to the applications, the exit and entrance of the traffic in a dynamic way, unlike the current quality of service that is rigid and static, is a tremendous advantage as it is done according to demands in real-time, so the customer experience is always the best.

It is transversal to all industries. What is important is to work on the costs of the solution.

On the technical side, manufacturer-independent solutions should be able to handle different topologies, simple or complex, and without having to invest more money in infrastructure or licensing.

What I also find should be improved is the possibility of really separating the software layer from the hardware layer since today the current offer is not well adopted by the service providers, which is why it does not reach the end customers. I understand this is an issue that directly affects the business goal of each manufacturer.

I've used the solution for five years.

The truth is that I started using an initial solution called IWAN, the intelligent network. It tried to take the best of current technologies and provide it in a network format. In my opinion, it did not achieve its goals.

It is not the cheapest solution on the market, however, without a doubt, it is one of the options that best handles complex topologies. Therefore there is a need to know more accurately what the client wants to do, what their applications are, what their flows are, and, after this consultation, define the best architecture and then choose the best manufacturer that obviously offers me a cost efficient option.

We evaluate the competition, however, within the same conditions, we wanted a dedicated equipment solution of bare metal, software, and hardware together plus the underlying layer.

This is a great solution.

We primarily use the solution for MPLS. We use it to have a connection to the telecom and we also have some radio networks that we use it for. We have two WAN ports - one is the MPLS one is the radio backbone.

The solution is excellent mainly for supporting our two WAN ports. We can dedicate which WAN is taking over and which one is available or not. It's great that we can also connect them to the internet. We can have a third line to connect to the internet providers for our internet solution. Everything is redundant and everything is working so far.

Overall, it's been working well for us.

The solution is great at aggregating the traffic and then sending it in one direction.

We have a good knowledge base in-house and good support in general and therefore we have continued to use it over the years.

The product can scale well.

The solution is very stable.

The solution basically does exactly what we need it to do. I can't recall finding a feature that was lacking for our purposes. We aren't actually using many of the features in general.

The solution could be a bit cheaper.

We've been using the solution for about three or four years at this point.

We've had absolutely no issues with the stability of the solution. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's been quite good overall.

This is deployed in our headquarters. We have them around the country, and we have some large offices and have the solution at all of them. There are likely 1,000 or more users on the solution all over the country.

The same generation and the same product is the easiest to scale and we have them mostly on some of our sites. We have the needed redundancy. That said, I would question the scalability if you are dealing with multiple types or other versions or other products. It needs to be of the same generation to take advantage of the path of least resistance.

We never test it with other solutions, however, with Cisco and other vendors is there is not recommended.

We mainly use the solution directly and as-is. There is a lot of redundancy, so if something goes wrong, there's something to catch it. We don't really use too many features for SD-WAN. So far, we don't need anything added on, and we really don't need too much support from customer service.

We buy support, however, in the latest versions, we really haven't needed assistance. IN the past, we did have some issues and support was there to help us get replacements, for example. They make getting replacements easy.

They usually reply to us within 15 minutes or so, if we do reach out. I'd describe them as pretty responsive. 

The level of difficulty depends on the experience of the engineer. If they don't have as much experience, it may be difficult. However, those that know the product well don't find the setup process complex.

Mainly they're using a command-line interface for years and they don't ask for anything like a GUI, which would be on Windows or Linux civil server. Everybody enjoys command-line. We exchanged some other Cisco products and some other routers recently, which were working for 15 years and are still working. We just asked for new ones with new features, like more traffic, more throughput, et cetera. 

I don't recall any maintenance really being needed. It works 24/7 without much need for assistance.

We did have some outside help, although nothing was from Cisco directly. We have our contact support company, and also we have in-house knowledge. It's done together, using both teams.

It would always be nice if the solution was a bit cheaper, however, the value is good. The cost of ownership is worth it as the solution itself is quite good and lasts years.

As a bigger company, we'd prefer to have a brand and a solution that's reliable as opposed to trying to find the cheapest option and have sleepless nights, afraid it might fail.

To calculate what we buy and how much it costs us for all the services, it's still quite a lot of money.

You have to pay between 3000 and 10,000 euros, or something in that range. The core switches Nexus cost me between 10,000 and 20,000 euros. However, they work, and that's why we use them.

We are just a customer and end-user.

We have 1921 and 4331 router versions. 

Not only does Cisco have a reputation, but we also have a good experience for a number of years, - five, 10, 15, 20 even years of use. Some of them still working even after all of this time.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it were more affordable, I might rate it higher.

The first part that we like is that we can reuse certain hardware, which is a valuable asset. You can use hardware SKUs that already exist in the network.

The second part that we like is the integration with the cloud and the measurement of the cloud's quality. These are the two values that this solution gives as compared to other implementations that we have seen.

Its license model needs to be improved. They always make the license model too complex. There are too many license models and too many options. They should have a flexible license model.

They can improve a lot of things in terms of scalability, templates, and automation, mainly automation for onboarding a number of sites.

If you want some new features, it can take quite a long time. If you want a feature and it is not yet developed, you need to have the support of the business units to have the feature developed. If the feature is not on their roadmap, it can take quite some time before you get the feature.

I have been using this solution for about a year.

Its stability is fine if you stay within certain releases. From the stability point of view of the releases, it is fine.

We don't have deployments that have more than 500 sites. That's our biggest deployment from one customer. I cannot say anything for huge deployments because we do not have a lot of metrics.

Their technical support is good. They know what they are talking about, and you can see that they are experienced in their product.

It is easy to set up for small deployments. If you go for larger deployments, you hit some limitations in the GUI, and it could be more complex. This is because not all features that we assumed to be available are available in the GUI. For example, you know there are some features in the traditional MPLS router, but these features are not available when you run the same hardware on Cisco SD-WAN. 

In small deployments, you don't see such an issue. In larger deployments, such as data center setups, you see some limitations popping up. Some features that we had in traditional routing are not available in Cisco SD-WAN. Bootstrapping is okay, but you are limited to the serial number. A limitation is that you need to link the serial number and the bootstrap process, which depends on the model. If you are used to working with a serial number, it is fine, but if you are not, it can be more difficult.

The license model is too complex with too many flavors and options. You might not be able to see it from an end user's point of view, but from a telco point of view, their license model is too complex. They should have a flexible license model. If you want to have good pricing, you need to buy it for a two-year, four-year, or five-year license immediately. Some other vendors have much more flexible license models.

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

We use the solution as a router.

Cisco is very secure and very fast, and its work is ongoing. They give the commands to what they want.

Everything is on one disk. I need to do anything from one end.

The solution could be cheaper.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about two months.

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable. Over 600 users are using this solution.

Support is fast and customer-friendly.

The initial setup is complex and takes about 30 minutes to complete.

The tool is very expensive. It has a five-year subscription.

Cisco and Juniper are very costly.

Overall, I rate the solution a six or seven  out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN has separate OMP routing. 

The solution is very costly. 

.I have been working with the solution for a year. 

The solution is stable, and you need good connectivity. 

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable. 

Cisco SD-WAN's support was good. 

Positive

You can get subscriptions for three or five years. 

You need expert engineers to handle Cisco SD-WAN. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We are an IT integration company that implements this solution for customers and clients. We deploy the solution on-premises.

The solution is stable.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

The solution is stable.

It is a very scalable solution. 

We have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is straightforward in a laboratory environment, but when we started implementing it in the field, we had some problems. We are deploying a pilot of the solution for a few branches.

We have seen a return on investment.

We have a subscription and a three-year license.

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

Cisco SD-WAN's most valuable feature is the ease of transition.

Cisco SD-WAN's smart account stuff could be improved. People still think they're using traditional licenses, so customers need a lot of education on using SD-WAN devices, especially on the smart/virtual account side.

I've been using Cisco SD-WAN for about two years.

Cisco SD-WAN's stability is good - I haven't found any issues at the operational level.

Cisco SD-WAN's scalability is good.

The initial setup was complex and required us to plan ahead. If you don't have an in-house design team or outsource to a third party with expertise, the setup will be difficult.

It takes some time, but Cisco SD-WAN gives a good ROI - for example, we have had some savings in terms of transport.

I'd advise anybody thinking of implementing Cisco SD-WAN to learn the smart and virtual account setup and the staging and installation process very clearly. This isn't just a case of buying a license or device and installing it, you need to create a lot of stuff, so you need to understand the technology before buying it, at least in a test lab or non-production environment. I would give Cisco SD-WAN a rating of seven out of ten.