Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is for connectivity of local network LAN switching.

The deployment model is on-premises.

The most valuable feature is the complete functionality, but the most important thing is support.

Pricing could be lower.

It is difficult to look for additional features to be added because there a lot of different switches, different models, and usually each model is designed according to the number of ports. It's a satisfactory unit within the usage area for that model.

I have been using this solution for twenty-five years.

Cisco solutions are usually very, very stable.

This solution is scalable.

It depends on the customer, regarding the number of users. Recently we were awarded a contract for the Turkish military, and there will be several thousand people who will be using it.

Support is the most important. If something goes wrong then Cisco's support is outstanding.

I initially started with Cisco, only afterward, I started using a different solution.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment time varies on the specific project. For example, if the project requires fewer switches it can take thirty minutes, while other projects could require one hundred and fifty switches that would take a week or ten days. 

We require four to five engineers for deployment and maintenance.

Cisco knows what they are doing and their support is great.

I would highly recommend this solution.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in the access layer for connecting EP-phone, PC, and access points. We use Cisco, like 3850, for the aggregation layer, and we use 6500 catalyst switches for the core layer.

They have very good throughput and backup for their energy. We find, stock-wise and energy-wise, it's easy to use with the CLA command.  

I can create a lot of interfaces, or SDI interfaces for VLAN and SNMP. I can show it with my SNMP platform. I can gain much access to them. They are really, really, good switches.

The solution is stable.

The scalability has been great.

We find the setup process to be simple. 

Technical support has always been helpful.

Stock-wise, the solution can improve.

The patching and updating could be better.

We'd like the pricing to be lowered. 

The stability is quite good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability of the product is great, If a company needs to expand, it can. There is a lot of stacking and cascading that can happen.

Technical support from Cisco has been great. They are helpful and responsive. 

We primarily use Cisco in our company.

It's a very easy to deploy product. It's just a question of buying the cable for stacking and getting it done.

The pricing of the solution is pretty high.

Compared with other switches, such as Huawei or HPE, it's very, very expensive. ON top of that, the campus network, it's not an area that has a high budget. We have to have work towards minimizing this price.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. It's great for small to large enterprises. Just the number of ports that we can create makes a difference. We can use a lot of switches with 48 ports. In the smaller cases, we can still use 12 ports. 

We're primarily using the solution for Jim basically the whole IT infrastructure, including the broadcast facility on the management side. It uses Cisco switches, which we spread out with the 9500 Series as sort of the main switches. We also use 93180s to create the backbone or spine of our setup.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ability to manage the switches and the ability to have a certain level of familiarity with setting up and configuring the switches. You can link them together and manage them as one single switch.

The biggest pain point we had was getting the switches delivered. However, that likely was due to COVID and everything else. I don't think it's a Cisco issue. It's just a supplier issue, as they seem to have a hard time getting deliveries in order.

One thing we did have to work around is, on the broadcast side, we're reliant on the PTP protocol, precision time protocol, and the Cisco switches in general, don't support that. Some do, however, the majority of ones we're using did not. We worked around it, however, that would be one area for us that would have been simply solved with more capabilities for PTP on Cisco's end.

I've dealt with the solution for a long time, however, my most recent project has just been over the last six or so months.

The solution has been absolutely fine so far and I have yet to run into any scalability issues just yet. A company should be able to expand if they need to.

We have about 100 people using the product at any given time.

I don't really have direct knowledge of technical support, however, I haven't heard anybody mention anything about reaching out to Cisco. They tend to work through their vendor CDW. I'm sure they have some support agreement with Cisco, although I'm really not the person that would be able to answer that. In general, I can't speak to Cisco's support as I've never had reason to reach out to them.

I wasn't directly involved with the configuration, however, it seemed that the main problem we had was just nailing down the requirements. The way I've worked here is there's a central IT department for the company. They're remotely configuring it. There just was a lot of confusion about specific requirements getting imported. Once those were clarified, then there was no problem setting it up. 

I don't think it's a Cisco issue. It's really an internal management issue in this company. The tools were there and once we nailed down the requirements and we understood them, then it seemed to work just fine. We haven't had any problems since then.

In terms of maintenance, there's a core IT team here of about four people with a manager. Then, there are the corporate people that are shared amongst the whole corporation. At any one time, we probably have one of those persons working on some issue here, on average. Overall, we have six people who can handle maintenance, however, it's not full-time. There are other duties too.

The costs and licensing aren't part of my job and therefore I don't know anything of exact pricing.

We provide engineering and technical support services with a hardware-software. It's my understanding that w don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

My advice to other organizations is to make sure to ensure that whoever the supplier is, they can commit to delivering and making deliveries. In our case, we're waiting on one switch for instance. It's in the mail. It got lost. Now they're promising delivery by tomorrow. I don't see that as a Cisco issue, however, it is a problem when it comes to getting everything implemented. I would have locked in the vendor that could ensure delivery if I knew these issues would arise. 

Overall, I would rate the solution as a solid eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches for LAN networking and connecting our systems.

Cisco Ethernet Switches is stable and robust.

It could be cheaper. It'll also help if it can support more network utilization.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for about two years.

I think Cisco Ethernet Switches are quite stable, and it's pretty robust,

Cisco Ethernet Switches is scalable.

We are satisfied with technical support. 

The initial setup and installation are straightforward.

A consultant implemented it.

It could be cheaper.

I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches an eight.

On-premises

We primarily use the solution like a normal wired network. We use it in the area before you connect it to outer networks using the firewall. Our inner network is managed by switches. All the wired connections come to those switches. We can do internal networking on the switches such as VLANs and all of those things. We use it for basic switching purpose.

Yes, it has improved.

The solution is easy to use.

The product is quite stable, which is one of its main selling points. The solution can scale.

I don't really have a complaint about the features that the solution has.

It can be a bit expensive, however, it's not as expensive as Meraki switches.

The user interface, the UI, could be better.

Going command mode to make hardcore changes to the config. It's not so futuristic environment for configuration purposes.

While you can scale the solution, it can get expensive.

We've been using the solution for quite a while now. We've used them for at least four or five years at this point.

The solution is extremely stable. We never have issues with it. It doesn't have any underlying issues and is quite reliable.

While the solution can scale, it's a costly endeavor. Scaling definitely will cost an organization more money.

We have about 60 or 70 users of the product within our organization.

While we've occasionally had issues with the solution, we've never actually reached out to technical support. Therefore I can't speak to their responsiveness or knowledgability.

We've always used Ciscos switches of one kind or another. We've never used another brand. We're currently planning to change to Cisco Meraki switches. We haven't yet configured them, however. We're going to use it with a Palo Alto Firewall.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was extremely straightforward. That said, our setup required a very minimal configuration, and therefore it didn't take up much time. The deployment took maybe half an hour or so.

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need help from consultants or integrators.

While normal switches are not too expensive, Meraki switches are pricier.

We're just customers and end-users. We don't have any business relationship with Cisco.

It's my understanding that we are not using the latest version of the switches.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been largely pretty satisfied with the solution.

On-premises

How we use Cisco Ethernet Switches depends on the customer's requirements. We just connected Alliance switches with trans 2/4 switches in our office, and we have deployed it as a static configuration. We are not planning any other protocol for the permission and the configuration we aren't using. But for our customers, we go with the VMA architecture, networking, and Cloud Meraki and Experian from Cisco.

I think the VMA architecture is valuable. 

I don't have any issues on the technical aspects, but on the business side of things, I see that almost all the Catalyst and high-grade switches are now required to have a VMA license. Sometimes businesses may not require those licenses because they are just using them as the third street. 

It's a business challenge which we're facing in the Asian countries. Customers don't require a VMA environment at the moment, but it's essential to purchase a VMA license for some of the switches. It's a challenge that we're facing during sales or presales because when it comes to the competition like Cisco SSL and the others, they don't have that kind of a restriction.

If I would like to purchase a new switch, it can be a higher-end switch like a Chassis switch or a basic L2 or L3 switch—any switch where we can purchase a support bundle and install and use it. But with the VMA  license, we need to activate the license, or the Ethernet switch will not perform. It won't work.

If Cisco Ethernet Switches can work both on-prem and in the cloud, it would be an advantage. Other vendors are already offering this option. It would be a great added advantage to use the same switch in standalone mode, as a local MM or VMA, and for cloud control.

I have been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for about 12 years. 

In my experience, Cisco Ethernet Switches are stable.

In my experience, Cisco Ethernet Switches are scalable.

Cisco Ethernet Switches come with good technical support. But sometimes we get engineers who aren't as knowledgeable, but we can speak to them and fix a problem within a couple of hours.

The initial setup of Cisco Ethernet Switches is very straightforward in my experience.
It's quite easy. But I think it depends on the knowledge and experience of the engineer.

We don't conduct any annual maintenance, but it's probably best to do it annually.

I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches to others.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches a ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Remote management and monitoring, multi-layer switching, flexibility, per port configurations, possibility of port aggregation, standard management interface, loads of documentation available from Cisco and Partners, multitude of troubleshooting tools embedded in the OS, QoS.

Ease of deployment of internal networks, separation of departments traffic, replacement of hubs (and the respective absence of collision related network unavailability), implementation of VoIP, improved configuration and access management.

VTP should be configured as Transparent by default.

Several years, on different projects.

A close look at each part-number characteristics is recommended, especially regarding the type of Uplink Ports (do you need fiber or copper uplinks for example?) and specific protocols (do you need BGP? is RIPv2 enough, for instance), as some of them are only available in specific models or with additional licenses. Selecting the licensing type can be the slightly tricky part, although you can usually upgrade it later.

Not unless it was caused by malfunction or a mixup in configuration.

On the specific cases I used, never. Adding new switches to the networks is painless (but please be careful with the VTP configuration though, as if it’s not configured you do have the possibility of a new switch giving you trouble with the VLAN configuration).

Customer Service: Excellent.Technical Support: Besides the great set of documentation available, partner support is usually good, no issues so far, on different projects.

Previous configuration was based on a basic router and switch configuration for each separate network, interconnecting at router level. The needs included reducing equipments, add management to the network to allow central monitoring and configuration, and adding new functionalities to the network, as well as having a buildup of different networks to separate traffic.

Straightforward if you’re installing for the first time. If it’s not the first installation, and you have multiple VLANs in place, be careful with the VTP configuration setup, as a misconfigured switch, since it’s on VTP server mode, can give you trouble.

Mixed types of implementations. Mixed expertise levels - some partners have better technicians than others, but never had a case where the technician didn’t leave with the configuration completed.

Generally a reduction on the number of equipments to manage, less time to manage and higher uptime.

Day to day costs are the maintenance costs from the manufacturer (different levels available), and part of the time of the IT Team. Setup Costs have depended on projects, and specific setup needs.

A few, namely Huawei and HP. While Huawei did allow some of the same characteristics at a lower price, available expertise and documentation, tipped the balance to Cisco, and the greater flexibility and feature set tipped the balance from HP.

Check that it’s the most cost effective solution (it’s very expensive if you only want to connect 4 users and a printer.); Check the model that fits your needs, regarding number of ports, and PoE for instance (no need of PoE for most uses.); Main uses would be to use a solution with multiple internal VLANs (needs at least IP Base License), VoIP implementations, and adding security and manageability to the network; Carefully check what License Feature set you need (there are 3 levels, LAN Base, IP Base, and IP Services), depending on your needs. You may be able to upgrade the software feature set later, but should check ahead.

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches to connect our infrastructure and application communication.

Cisco Ethernet Switches have good performance.

The price of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

We currently have around 5,000 people using the solution. The amount of people is determined by the license we have. To scale up we need to increase our license.

The technical support is helpful.

The initial setup is not complex. The deployment time depends on the level of setup but on average between two to four days.

When the solution is stable and we don't receive any complaints we see a return on investment using the solution.

Cisco offers annual and three-year license options.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

Having a Cisco Ethernet Switch is beneficial when selecting a network environment. It is advantageous to compare all the necessary components from different manufacturers, but ultimately, Cisco covers all the areas that will be necessary for the future.

On-premises