Cisco Enterprise Routers Reviews

I install this solution for clients. We are a service provider.

The performance is good.

The solution could be more secure.

It's stable. We haven't had any issues.

It's scalable.

Installation is simple.

I would rate this solution seven out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the command prompt, which is very user-friendly.

There have been multiple issues when updating iOS to Cisco routers. 

I've been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for four years.

The stability of Cisco Routers is fine, and their performance is good.

Cisco Routers are very scalable.

The initial setup was of medium difficulty.

Cisco's prices could be cheaper.

I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers as ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our final customers. The solution is used for communication. We are a service provider, and we offer our customers public networks as a service. Our customers typically need an internet connection or MPLS.

The solution offers very good networking capabilities.

The stability is excellent.

The consistency of the configuration has been very good.

The performance of the devices is very reliable.

The initial setup can be a little bit difficult. They should try to make it easier to set up for new users.

I’ve used the solution for maybe ten to 15 years. I’ve used it for over a decade. It’s been a while.

The solution is quite stable and the devices are reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s been great.

The solution is extremely scalable. It’s not a problem expanding it as necessary.

We’ve used the solution’s technical support. We found them helpful and responsive and we are quite satisfied with the level of support provided.

The initial setup can be hard. That said, we have a good amount of experience. It’s easier to manage the process if you have a good understanding of the solution in general.

I’m not sure how long it took to deploy the solution. For a big project, it might take as long as two weeks, however, a small deployment might only take a few hours. Every deployment differs according to size and requirements.

We tend to set up the solution for our clients. We have some engineers that work directly with end customers.

We use the most recent version of the solution, however, I do not know the version number off-hand.

I’d rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We’ve been very happy with its capabilities.

We use IOS XE version 17.

I like the price of the solution and the ability to take advantage of it as fast as we want. 

Sometimes, it can take a while to get used to a new version or additions which are made and this involves us going to the note and doing a lot of reading. There are many changes of which we are not aware. The technology should be addressed, the new protocols that are incorporated in a new version. A new way for registering the equipment might be needed. It can be hard for us to deploy a new version, as we lack the knowledge for its use. 

The installation process should be simplified, since it is quite complex in a new version.

There are simply too many changes taking place. While we are still in the process of learning how to use a new version, another is sent. 

French language capabilities should be added. It is hard for us to adequately express ourselves in English. 

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for more than five years.

The solution is quite stable, no bugs or glitches. Based on my experience, I can confirm that this is true of the new version. 

I am pleased with the technical support. In my experience with the TAC team, which provides us with technical assistance, I have found it to be very useful. The moment an issue arises, we open a ticket and receive the help we need. 

The installation process should be simplified, since it is quite complex in a new version.

There are two many changes taking place. While we are still in the process of learning how to use a new version, another is sent. It can be hard for us to deploy a new version, as we lack the knowledge for its use.

I like the price of the solution. 

We act as the integrators of the solution. 

I would certainly recommend the solution to others. 

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

We use routers for communicating between different networks.

The solution could be more stable and secure. 

We've been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for the past two decades.

The solution is quite stable, although it could be more so. 

We have the need to upgrade and plan to do so at the requisite time. 

We have had occasion to contact technical support in the case of clarifications, other practices involving new software and firmware upgrades. 

We are very satisfied with the response time. 

The solution is easy to install. It is so easy. It does not present an issue. 

We require six people, working around the clock, for the deployment and maintenance. 

We do not have an issue with the price. 

The license is perpetual and is in-built to the router upon purchase of the device. However, they recently changed the licensing model to one which is subscription-based for periods of three, five or seven years. The licensing fee is okay and matches industry standards, which is the benchmark. 

In the past we evaluated Juniper Routers. The sole difference between this solution and that of Cisco Enterprise Routers is that the former has a somewhat more complex operating system, which is not very user-friendly. 

We have not made use of Juniper Routers. 

There are around 9,000 people in our organization and we have approximately 120 routers.

I would recommend Cisco Enterprise Routers to others. 

I use Cisco Enterprise Routers for connectivity. I have five branch sites and a headquarters. We use these routers for connectivity between the branch sites and the headquarters where I'm using SAP.

I like that Cisco Enterprise Routers is a stable solution. Their technical support is also really good.

It would be better if Cisco Enterprise Routers were more secure.

I've been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for about 11 years. 

Cisco Enterprise Routers is a stable solution. They are stable enough, and they have been serving us well for the past ten years. We haven't found any issues with them.

Cisco Enterprise Routers is scalable, but their legacy routers aren't that scalable. However, they have been serving us pretty well over the years. We have about 4,000 users at the moment.

Cisco's tech support has been really good.

The initial setup is straightforward, and it's easy to install. It takes less than an hour to implement this solution. We have a technical team with about 20 people maintaining this solution.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

I only evaluated Fortinet. There's tough competition between Fortinet and Cisco, but we opted for Cisco.

I would probably recommend this solution to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Enterprise Routers an eight.

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.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are the best. I am satisfied with this product.

The commands are easy to understand.

While the commands are easy to understand, and you will find a mixture, if you put a question mark on them then it will create problems.

The improvements will improve our company management and our system compatibility.

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

It is stable. We have not had any issues with stability.

It's a scalable product. We have a total of 5,000 employees in our company that we use Cisco Enterprise Routers for.

We are troubleshooting for our clients. Our company is a telecom based company. We provide internet data to all of India.

We have three companies on our site with technical issues that require immediate support.

We have worked with other routers, but Cisco is the best.

Cisco is easy to deploy and easy to set up.

The price is reasonable.

We pay for licensing every year.

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