Cisco Enterprise Routers Reviews

I am the head of enterprise and business, leading the presales, system and network architecture teams. 

We use this tool as an IP VPN connecting 50 to 60 branch networks.

Cisco has many features, however, we configure only OSPF and other QoS functions. There are three functions like that, but the routing protocol is OSPF through IP VPNs.

Cisco launched the 8000 series routers, including the SD-WAN features and Viptela, plus the cloud connectivity. They continuously improve and add so many features to the new IOS, mainly in the cloud, the microservice's architecture and  Kubernetes. 

There are no new features required. Cisco has a huge amount of configurations and features built in, however, we use less than 10% of those features. The 4000 series that I am using does not have routing and cloud connectivity, but it is my understanding that this is now included in the 8000 series.

Cisco has acquired other companies, and due to this, there are many API-based integrations. There should be one platform that will enable a smooth integration. For example, Cisco acquired ThousandEyes, AppDynamics and Viptela. These are ideal solutions for big companies in terms of WAN connectivity. Cisco needs to ensure that there is a smooth integration mechanism in order to ease this process or point of integration.

Cisco should also ensure it remains on par with the world technology roadmap as it has been to this point.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for twelve years. Our organization has forty to fifty users.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are stable. This is one of the best products I have worked with.

Scalability is limited for Cisco Routers. Interface scalability has additional slots to plug the card in and increased the required interfaces and required media, like fiber or copper band. The performance of the router is limited. Cisco Router is a hardware platform with IOS, which is limited for every hardware-based plan. However, whatever limitations there have been, we have not felt any bottlenecks.

The challenge is when the customer wants to have a complete technology change, for example, IP VPN to SD-WAN, they will need to also have a hardware refresh and replace all of the hardware.  

Technical support is good, however, after COVID, some engineers didn't have up-to-date knowledge. This is the case for approximately 10% of the engineers. This also could have something to do with Cisco outsourcing to third parties.

As far as maintenance, Cisco provides top-level support to us here in Sri Lanka. This includes after-sales support. They have the RMA depot located here for Sri Lankan services. 

Positive

I have experience with HPE Routers and Aruba, but that was over five years ago. As far as WAN connectivity, I have used Fortinet. Fortinet does not have browsers, but I used the firewall. For SD-WAN functions, I have used Meraki.

The initial setup is not complex. Cisco has acquired many other companies, so there are many API-based integrations, and sometimes those are not smooth. 

We have in-house engineers that did all the configurations. In some circumstances, we had open tech cases and received help from tech engineers at Cisco.

Cisco is more expensive than other architecture solutions. They have different licensing and subscriptions.

I recommend Cisco Routers because of its stability, support, and availability. Cisco gives premium support, and they offer a solid product. Availability is a challenge right now for everyone because of the worldwide silicon shortage. So, my advice is to get one year ahead.

I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers a nine out of ten.

We have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for building micro-networks and Internet networks for main VPN services, high-speed Internet access, and extending the network of customers.

I have found the most valuable feature of Cisco Enterprise Routers to be the simplicity of the command-line interface, it is very intuitive as to how the commands need to be configured for a specific use case. 

Over time things have changed where Cisco has not invested in improving the orchestration and simplifying it for people who do not want to get into the details. Cisco has not gone into that focus. Technologies such as MPLS and VPN, have become very difficult to use for many service providers. This is where you have the admission of software-defined networks which brought in a lot of simplicity when it comes to routing and functionality.

What Cisco Routers needs to do to improve is what they have already done with the SD-WAN solution. It is a very, elegant solution, but even though it is a pretty comprehensive solution, one of the problems with the Cisco solution is many customers do not use all the features. They must have a category of customer premises equipment, specifically for the managed service providers and enterprise networks that can be much more cost-effective from an IT perspective. The configuration can be simplified at the GUI level. It should be easier because any telecommunication provider only has an enterprise network nowadays. 

When I am running an SD-WAN as an enterprise, I have features that are capable of finding an alternate path when there is latency. I have yet to find a solution to integrate them. For example, if I am a managed services provider for an SD-WAN customer, how do I make sure that this feature is automatically taken care of by the service provider side by monitoring its own option. This managing from the service provider side in the SD-WAN solution does not exist, it is all only static provisioning right now. When you are doing the original provisioning it happens, but dynamically when the network changes due to quirks in the network, how does it actually handle it. If there was this kind of features it would help Cisco to become the best in the process. You need to have a more solution-specific understanding.

The parts management teams have to come up with features that will benefit the service provider and the enterprises if they want to be the best.

I have been working with Cisco Enterprise Routers for approximately 30 years.

The stability and bugs are more related to a Cisco internal issue because when I worked in the Cisco team in research and development, their internal procedures were very complex and they had a very bloated OS software. All those problems have been solved in approximately 2007. They have improved a lot of processes and areas. They brought more modularity into the code and they have strict mechanisms for fixing the software. Earlier the problem was that when they fixed the problem for one router, they had to go and fix the same issue in different code bases. For example, if there was a bug in QoS, Quality of Service, code and it was on a router that was also found to be in all the versions which of many other routers, they will fix on few of them. They will not fix many others because that would cause problems later in the deployment of the solution. This method has backfired a lot for Cisco.

They learned from their mistakes and started modularizing the code, they standardized the quality of service across the platforms and those problems went away. 

Now they have much more modular code and have done a very good job standardizing the CLI. This is what is helping the orchestration because the more complexity you have across different platforms it makes it very difficult for orchestration. You are able to do it but it makes it even worse. They needed big teams to manage the bug fixes and to understand how the bugs were going to be fixed. Now with the tools that are available, they have simplified a lot of the processes. The concept of segment routing and how can it be used for micro-segmentation, are wonderful features.

The lack of talent is the major challenge and is something that is widening. However, orchestration solutions will actually help. The more proficient technical support personnel can focus on the troubleshooting whereas the entry-level personnel can focus on the orchestration part and manage the services. The troubleshooting can be taken care of by the more technologically advanced personnel at level two support and the level three technical support should be in the position to go right down through the levels and be able to see what is going wrong and fix the issue.

There was a time when we had excellent technical support in Cisco. It has been 10 years since I left Cisco and one thing I can say is that over a period of time, the technical support of Cisco diminished. The problems were more related to the internal processes within the system and the hiring processes that were used. When you are hiring people for technical support you cannot just hire somebody based on CCIE or CCNA certification. You need people who are real engineers who understand the protocol at the level of detail that is required at the level of implementation and the software must be understood extremely.

Unfortunately, in CCIE they learn how to pass the exams, but they really do not know how to build real networks. There are people who are very good at networking in configuring but they are extremely bad when it comes to understanding computer architecture, what is error correction memory, how does it affect software performance, and what kind of problems it can bring. They have no idea at all. This causes a problem when attempting to troubleshoot the equipment.

These problems are what Cisco and all others face. Cisco has invested a lot in their teams, but if you have managers who do not know how to recruit the right type of people then you face a lot of challenges. Those working on routers, switches, networks, and their environments must have a good understanding of what an operating system is, what is the computer architecture, what is the architecture of the router, and what it is implemented in the protocol. It is very important to be aware of the tools that are in the customer environment, how is the customer using them, are they using them in the right way, or in the wrong way. These things also must be understood.

Most of the help personnel just focus on the software side of the problem. They are not worried whether the customer is getting the connectivity in the right way or not, you have to be supporting in the right way. When I was in a company called Wipro, which is a Cisco partner, I found that they did not know even know how to handle the information correctly. You feel a lot of challenges because of the way hiring is done. 

I am not sure how they handle new features or functionality nowadays but I used to do technology transfer to help people understand how a particular feature or the new functionality that is developed in the platform was supposed to be working, such as certain setup commands that I have used for configuration, the expected outputs, and some of the basic troubleshooting that was needed.

The prices of Cisco are mostly fair. Cisco is similar to BMW for the networking industry. If you compare it with other vendors, such as Huawei, they cannot match the service. Cisco solution serves as the BMW of the networking industry in the way that the others are trying to live up to those expectations. Cisco is justified in some of the pricing, not all the pricing, if you go to the Cisco website, you can see the detailed documentation.

I am currently working with Nokia and it is very difficult to find where the documentation is on the web. They do not even provide the datasheets, and they are only provided them on request for the equipment. How will a person really appreciate a company when it comes to that kind of solution? I can go to the Cisco website and look at the SD-WAN to see the validated designs, all the information, and understand them just by creating myself an account but not with Nokia. I am even trying to figure out what are the protocols that Nokia will use in their SD-WAN solution. It would be much easier to have documentation to compare the advantage and disadvantages. Cisco's openness in their documentation is one of the most appealing strengths of the company, it really gives you an indication of how open they are. The documents detail how much money they spend on it, and how they are helping the industry from an infrastructure perspective. Additionally, Cisco gives you talented individuals. There are people who are self-learners who will go to the website and look at the documentation, learn, and understand the software to find which functionality has a bug. When it comes to a Nokia, they will only help you if you are a managed service with a contract. Otherwise, you cannot even deploy their equipment, this is not a good practice.

I justify part of the pricing that Cisco has but not the full model. There is a 25 percent price increase over the Nokia and it is justified for what Cisco delivers to its customers. I am calculating not just the pricing for just the routers, but the overall price, including openness and how much support they can handle. They are excellent. If you run a network without software support from Cisco and call technical support they will help. For example, they will indicate the problem exists because you upgraded the software and if you have a contract, you can automatically download the software to fix the problem. This would not be the case with Nokia, you will need them to be involved, they select the managed services, and that makes it extremely difficult for people to afford. 

Cisco is way too expensive for small and medium businesses. They must lower their prices in the lower range equipment. They need to make sure that they do not ignore that market segment because they will lose it for good. They will be gone from the Asian market and they will survive with only those companies which are extending their arms into India and South Asia because of the large companies that are there. They will not be able to penetrate the markets in all small and medium businesses and will not thrive.

I have evaluated Huawei and Nokia solutions. Nokia solutions are pretty good. However, in their software, I have heard from many of my friends, they have some type of secrecy that they follow that is very difficult for me to digest.

It is important for smaller companies to focus on understanding how deployments are done. The learning should be done from the perspective of deployment operations because whether you are an enterprise or a service provider you are buying these routers and offering a service to the internal or external customers as a service provider. You need to understand how these platforms and overall solutions help you to build a network faster and which part of it reduces the cost. Many of the smaller companies do not understand the operational expenses well enough, they will end up doing all kinds of Ad Hoc configurations with half the knowledge, and they will run into problems and it will be expensive.

I rate Cisco Enterprise Routers a six out of ten.

It is used for small to medium businesses. Nowadays, there are so many other routers with different operating systems, XR, and DSR that are available for service providers in other data centers.

The DNS features are different in the ASR series. Apart from that, Cisco provides most of the needed features in all the routers, except the live local license.

In my opinion, Cisco is not granular if we compare it to Juniper. In terms of the access lists and some other parts like if we delete one ACL, most of the parties are gone on the Cisco side. But in Juniper, I can delete fifty access lists.

All the rules and policies are also granular and are based on the UNIX operating system or Linux operating system. Cisco needs to consider those in the market because Juniper is doing well. Some granular functions are required because they have all of the routing protocols with almost all the features.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for 10-12 years, since the company launched the Cisco 1841 router.

It is a stable solution. 

There are no issues with scalability. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

I have never contacted customer service apart from once or twice. But it was not regarding the router’s features rather there were some issues in FPD.

The initial setup is straightforward. Most of the people can understand and do it on their own. As far as the management platform is considered, hybrid solutions are being used by large enterprises. Some other enterprises use Meraki-based solutions as well, and some of them use the on-prem solution.

I implemented it myself. 

It is quite costly for the same feature as compared to Huawei and Juniper. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I recommend Cisco. 

Cisco Enterprise Routers are used when you have networks with multiple branch offices connecting to a single point. 

Cisco support is the most valuable aspect because most technicians in the industry understand how to interface with a Cisco product. When we contact support, we know we'll probably get the answer whether we have to escalate the request to a new engineer or not. 

The cost is the biggest drawback of Cisco products. They say you'll never get fired for buying Cisco, but it's going to cost you. 

Cisco Enterprise Routers are highly stable. You can usually set them up and forget about them. 

Cisco Enterprise Routers are highly scalable. We can upgrade to a higher appliance depending on our needs and bandwidth. 

I rate Cisco Enterprise Routers nine out of 10 overall. They're reliable, scalable, and have the background support any enterprise solution requires.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are used to connect our headquarters to the other store.

Cisco Enterprise Routers is reliable and secure.

When compared to PEPLink, Cisco Enterprise Routers are less flexible, and you cannot have more than one user.

The scalability could be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Enterprise Routers for 15 years.

I started working with Cisco Enterprise Routers in 2007 or 2008.

Cisco Enterprise Routers is a stable solution.

We have approximately 400 users in our organization.

We have a team of 20 to maintain this solution.

We have contacted technical support once or twice. it's rare.

We have been customers with SAP since 2004.

We use SAP and ECC6, and we will be migrating to SAP4/Hanne in April.

I am familiar with SAP Business One, but we are not using it.

We also have East Oil, an SAP vertical solution for petroleum businesses.

We do not have any solutions on the cloud. All of our solutions are deployed on the premises.

We also work with another solution for our fueling system called Dover WAN Fusion.

We use Endpoint Security for Windows and Kaspersky.

For our email, we use lotus notes and Image Source.

For our SAP server, along with Oracle Database, we use IX Unix and Linux.

We use PEPLink in the store and Cisco in the headquarters. We've got a hybrid solution, we use two different vendors.

We have a great number of people, a significant number of engineers, in the information system.

As a manager, I don't have the details of what is involved in the setup.

I believe licensing fees are paid once per year.

I would recommend this solution to others, it's good. We are satisfied.

I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for communication between banking branches, and connecting those branches to Head Office.

We appreciate that this solution performs well, regardless of the volume of traffic being fed through it.

The main area for improvement with this product is with the price, which is currently very high compared to the rest of the market.

We have been working with this solution for more than 20 years.

This is a very stable solution.

We have found this to be a scalable solution.

The technical support for this solution is very good.

Positive

The initial setup for this product is very easy, once some training has taken place.

We implemented this solution using our in-house team.

There is a router-only, perpetual license available for this product, but additional features will mean additional charges.

We recommend this solution for medium to large organizations, as it requires a large financial commitment to work at its best.

We would also advise organizations to be very clear on their requirements. This way they are not paying for features that this product provides, but that they won't use.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Enterprise Routers or WAN connectivity and switching in multiple areas, such as data centers and branch offices.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Enterprise Routers is that they are robust and resilient. 

The overall price of Cisco Enterprise Routers should be reduced, it is expensive.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are stable.

The scalability of Cisco Enterprise Routers is good.

We have approximately 250,000 users using this solution in my organization. We have an additional 10,000-20,000 contractors and a couple of partners who use the solution.

The support from Cisco Enterprise Routers is good.

Cisco Enterprise Routers has a simple implementation. The timeframe it tale for the implementation depends on the solution we are deploying. It varies up to ten hours. We use Cisco's wireless, routers, switches, and a few firewalls.

We used an integrator to do the implementation.

We have approximately 20 engineers that do the deployment and maintenance.

The license of Cisco Enterprise Routers is too expensive compared to other solutions. As we try to increase the bandwidth, it gets even more expensive. There is an annual license needed to use the solution.

I would recommend Cisco Enterprise Routers to others who need an enterprise solution.

I rate Cisco Enterprise Routers an eight out of ten.

I use Cisco Routers in a variety of technologies, including TLS, BGP, OSPF, EIGRP, VRF policy-based routing, and VPN in some routers.

They are the most stable, have the highest availability, and are the most reliable on the market.

The price could be lowered.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for ten years.

We are not using the most recent version, but it is not the oldest.

Cisco Enterprise Routers is very stable.

Cisco Enterprise Routers is a scalable product.

We have more than 500 users in our company. We have a team of 50 IT technicians in our company and 5,000 employees that are distributed in approximately 70 locations in the country. Each location has Cisco Enterprise Routers on its premises.

We are pleased with Cisco's technical support.

I use many of the Enterprise Routers. I use now Cisco Routers 4420, 4431, 4450. I use IOS, IOS XE.

I have deployed many routers. All of our technologies have been applied to the routers.

We don't need a license if we use IOS for basic, IT-related tasks. However, if we want to use a security feature, advanced IT features, video conferencing, voice conferencing, or UT, we must purchase a license for each of these features.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are not the cheapest routers on the market, they are expensive.

I would recommend this solution other others who are considering it.

I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers an eight out of ten.