Cisco Enterprise Routers Reviews

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.

We use this solution for network communication and connectivity.

They are good. They have a good lifespan and they are easily managed.

The information is readily available for all of the products.

Also, they have local support available, as well as principal support, which is also easy to get.

Prices could be better.

I would like to see better reporting and also integration with other products.

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

We have the version that was used at that time, as well as the newest versions.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have 12 users in five locations.

Technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy to install.

It does take some time because you need to do the configuration. 

It can take a day to deploy. It may take longer if it is a complex environment, or if it is a simple environment, it can be done faster.

We have an internal team, who works with the implementation partner.

The implementation partner starts with the base configuration, and then they draw on our internet team to work with them.

Eventually, it falls under our team management.

It's expensive and the pricing could be improved.

The license is paid yearly.

We plan to continue using this solution. I would recommend Cisco Enterprise Routers to others who are interested in using them.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's our network device.

It is a good router that is available with advanced technology.

We are evaluating and considering moving to SD-WAN, which is the latest one.

As we are expanding, we require more coverage.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for 15 years.

It is always updated. We are using the latest version.

It's a stable router.

We have no issues with the scalability. We have approximately 500 users in our organization.

Technical support is good and they are very nice.

We have no issues with customer support.

It's a plug-and-play type of installation.

We have a team of 10 people to maintain this solution.

There are licensing costs and they are expensive.

We are currently evaluating other vendors.

Generally, I don't recommend anything to anyone.

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

We perform immigration checks in Pakistan. We have around 26 distributed check posts across Pakistan. We need network links to collect the data, implement the stop list, and other immigration-related data.

For immigration, we use an MIS system that helps the immigration personnel. This requires a network infrastructure at its core. We need to ensure the availability of data and to ensure data security.  round 90 to 95 people use it within our organization.

In itself, Cisco is a reliable product and does not require any major changes. We have utilized Cisco for around 15 years, and in that time, there has hardly been any incident to my knowledge that a router suddenly became faulty, or started to malfunction. Cisco is an excellent and very comprehensive product, and we have no issues with that.

It's not really about how Cisco can be improved, but the utilities around it. For example, Fortinet has a good firewall and useful auditing tools with it. It also allows establishing centralize infrastructure, just by installing a Fortinet client software, VPN software, at the client end. However, we know that Cisco is also providing such a product in the name of AnyConnect. It is a concern over the cost aspect because of the budget we have available, Fortinet is much cheaper than the Cisco product, including the functionalities it provides. Cisco routers are an expensive product. Regarding Cisco usage in the future, it depends upon the increase in the immigration checkpoints. If our government decided to open 10 more immigration checkpoints, and other sites related to those, it would require more procuring of hardware, including the number of routers to support this. 

We have been utilizing Cisco routers and switches, since 2004. We are a police organization in Pakistan.

We still use the Cisco router 1721 Modular Access Router, which is now obsolete but still works. It is very stable. We have some very old, like 16, 17 years, old models. We have been using Cisco for around 15, or 16 years. We are satisfied with Cisco. 

It's highly scalable. There should always be provision for scalability, as we procure many routers with modular capability. For example, we know that modular routers are capable of extension via WAN interfaces and other interfaces.

We are very much satisfied with Cisco technical support.

Some companies provide initial licenses very cheaply, as do Cisco, but when you want to renew or expand something, the licensing becomes expensive. 

The network team proposes that we might utilize Fortinet instead of Cisco in the future. There is no problem with Cisco, but this is when we might move towards Fortinet because Fortinet can provide these things that are very much cheaper than Cisco, including additional resources.

I would rate cisco 9 out of 10. Cisco is the network equipment leader. It introduces new features; it's the trend maker. The trade-off is cost. Cisco is highly recommended, subject to the availability of funds. It's all about the resources you have and how much you want to invest. We are the customer. However, we are also studying Fortinet and its comparisons and things like those to finalize the procurement process.

We use Cisco Enterprise Routers in the WAN solutions.

It's easy to use, and there is a lot of information available on the internet.

I would like to see more boundaries and better performance.

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

It's a stable product.

It's a scalable solution. We have 3,000 users in our organization.

I have not contacted technical support.

Depending on the client's needs we use other solutions such as HPE.

The initial setup is straightforward. It was easy. It was installed in minutes.

We have a team of 50 admins to help with the deployment.

We plan to continue using it in the future.

We used an integrator to help us with the implementation.

For others who want to use this solution, I would recommend it.

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

We use the solution for SD-WAN. 

The solution is strong. Cisco's support cannot be compared to any other solution's support. The tool gives you more bandwidth within your network. 

The solution is expensive and difficult to manage. 

I have been working with the product for eight to ten years. 

The product is easy to scale. We have enterprise customers for the product. 

The product's installation is easy if you have Cisco's support contract. The tool's deployment depends on the enterprise's volume and size. You need at least three engineers to handle the tool's deployment. The solution's maintenance is easy. 

There is ROI with the tool's use. 

I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten and it is yearly. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. The product is not advised for small-scale environments. You need to consider the cost before buying the solution. 

We primarily use the solution for connecting clients. It's for routing purposes.

The solution offers good connectivity. 

It is issue-free. 

The product has been stable and reliable.

It can scale. 

The cost is a bit high.

The security of the solution could be a bit better. 

There are some complex aspects of the solution during the initial setup.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

It's stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. It's easy to expand. 

We have a variety of clients using the solution. 

I've never used the technical support of Cisco.

I only really use Cisco devices. I used a few different options before I used Cisco. 

The setup can be a bit complex. It depends on the implementation. 

The deployment took about one month.

The pricing is too expensive. The company needs to pay for the licensing annually. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. 

I'd rate the product ten out of ten.

I'm quite happy with the solution overall.