Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

We are a hospital. We use the solution in our endpoints. We have more than 2000 endpoints.

The tool is stable.

The solution is expensive. It is not cheap.

I have been using the solution for 12 to 13 years.

We have around 3000 users. The tool is used daily.

We get technical support from TAC.

We have three in-house engineers who deploy the product. We need three people for maintenance.

We are absolutely fine with Cisco products. The product is good, but it is expensive. It will be helpful if it is cheaper. Whenever we order anything, it takes a lot of time to reach us. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I use the product for endpoint and server connectivity. I also use it as a core switch.

The product is the best in the market. It always works whether the environment is cold or hot. The product is pretty much reliable and stable.

The technical support should be improved.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

The scalability of the solution depends on the models. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

I have contacted support many times. The support is good, but not that good.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple.

The solution is not too expensive.

If someone uses the solution for the first time, they must know that network design is the most important part. They must pick the right models. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We recently replaced the BGP router and L3 switches. We're planning to replace some other switches also. We are having 22 switches distributed through my location with 24 ports. All the users are connected to those. We will increase our usage as we expand all over India. 

Cisco switches are trouble-free. They are reliable, and their performance is excellent. 

We have supply issues when ordering switches. It used to be a minimum of six to eight weeks. Now it has become around six months. That's the only issue we have. 

I have used Cisco Ethernet switches for more than 10 years.

I give Cisco Ethernet switches 10 out of 10 for stability.

I give Cisco Ethernet switches 10 out of 10 for scalability.

Cisco support is excellent.

Setting up Cisco switches isn't too complex, but it isn't easy. It could be more straightforward. One engineer can complete the setup in two to four hours.

We engaged the vendor who supplied us and helped deploy the switches.

I rate Cisco Ethernet switches 10 out of 10.

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 are routing with the Cisco switches, so there are a lot of features, but no single one stands out. 

There's are other products that are better for network programmability. Cisco isn't as programmable as some others vendors. For example, on devices running iOS XE, you  dont have candidate configuration datastore when you use netconf like you would have on arista, juniper or others. Changes are directly applied on running configuration so there is no room for error once you commit changes to devices.

So it will be good for them to implement other config datastores because when it go to programming, review it's important so we need to be abe to have at least a candidate configuration datastore.

I've been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for 15 years.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are stable.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are scalable.

Cisco support is good once you reach a technician, but the website is a mess. I don't like the website.

I didn't use previous solution and then swith, but evaluate others vendors sometimes because their was in use in a company we bought, sometimes because their were shipped as a bundle with some hardware vendors solution for private cloud or storage solutions etc. Thought ome of them have some good features, Cisco got a better average rate when you take the whole thing.

The initial setup is really easy.

The price of Cisco switches could be lower. The cost is growing compared to other products, and it's more segmented. A Cisco switch is more expensive than before. For example, stackable models used to be provided with stacking ports and stacking cable. Now it's split you have to buy stacking kit separately. I don't know if they are the only ones like this or if this is standard now.

Yes other options have been evaluated but Cisco appeared to be the more easy to operate through the years regarding the stability of the product series, the CLI, support and documentation.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches eight out of 10. 

We are a financial institution and we use Cisco Ethernet Switches as part of our network infrastructure.

The Cisco product range is quite good and they have a lot of features available.

For each of the features that I want to use on a Cisco device, we have to purchase a license. For example, if we want the security features then we have to purchase that in another bundle. The price becomes more expensive than products from Juniper.

The local support resources for Cisco in Bangledesh are very poor and should be increased.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately three years.

Cisco products are stable.

Cisco Ethernet switches are scalable. We have approximately 1,500 people using them in the company. We have a plan to increase our usage of Cisco by implementing an SD-WAN.

Cisco technical support on the backend, from the OEM, is very good. They are very experienced. However, the local partner and technical support in Bangledesh need to be improved.

Currently, I am also using a Juniper product. The split between Cisco and Juniper devices is approximately 50/50.

We are switching to Juniper because they are more cost-effective.

One of the reasons that we still have Cisco devices is that they have offerings that are not available from Juniper. Juniper is good, but they only have routing and switching products, whereas Cisco has products such as Cisco ASA that we use. In that regard, Cisco can provide more value-added.

The initial setup is really straightforward.

Our deployment took quite a long time. It was between three and six months.

We have six people in our network team and they are in charge of maintenance.

Our local Cisco partner assisted us with the implementation and deployment.

The technical person from the local partner was not as skilled as we expected, which is something that should be improved.

This is quite an expensive product.

We do not pay on a monthly basis. The fees are included when you purchase the device.

When we want an extra feature then we need to purchase another license bundle.

We are looking to gain some experience in using Mikrotik routers and switches.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The features that I have found most valuable with Cisco switches are that once you get your configuration you can rest assured that it will work. The OS is not going to be failing intermittently or anything like that. Once you get your configuration end-goal right, the firmware and the OS are usually stable enough to work a long time without support. Support is only needed once in a while. My experience is that the Cisco switches are usually rocket.

In terms of what could be improved, there is the bulk issue that is sometimes experienced with the Cisco products we've used. I don't know how it could be possible to be done, but it would be very good if there was an automated patching system. It would be a very big and difficult one, because some of these routers or switches or products are not even within an internet environment. This is especially limited with the switches. Routers can be connected to the internet and switches might not even have internet access and might just be for the local area network. If it has an internet connection, that would be great and if it has an automated parking code inside of the POE this would help them to patch without the user's input.

In the next release, I would like to see bulk fixing. That is basically what I do now. If we could have an automated patch for Cisco to just be standard for patching switches or routers or firewalls by default without the input of anyone adjusting, that would be great.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches since 2009, so probably for 13 years now.

In terms of scalability, normally you have a 24 port switch or a 48 port switch, which are fixed to scalability. So you can't really go beyond what has been provided. If it's a 24 switch, it's 24 users, if it's 48 it's 48, except if you're using the switch as an extender for a wireless device. That is a different conversation, but if you're using it in a LAN environment and for a connected, wired connection, then you can't scale.

But you can connect multiple switches to themselves and stack them and make it one switch depending on your design.

The setup is pretty easy. It's usually easy to configure, especially when you are using it for basic switching. It is usually easy to configure the VLAN, the PTPs and all of that.  The major work lies with your architecture and your design and how you want to use the solution, because once you get the architecture right, then your configurations and all will be very simple. But if you don't, you might have to do a lot of work when it comes to configuring.

A lot depends on how you configure it from the beginning. It's going to influence how it's going to work the rest of the time.

When it comes to switches and routers, I will always prefer Cisco over any other.

On a scale of one to ten, I'll give Cisco Ethernet Switches a seven because switch-wise, I think Juniper switches are also very good in performance. Especially the high end switches.

We have distributed locations, and we have them at different locations behind firewalls.

Being able to deal with multiple VLANs to segment the network logically is the biggest feature for us. The management of these switches is okay for us. These switches work very well, and they meet our needs. 

The pricing can be improved to make them more suitable for SMBs.

In terms of features, they tick all the boxes as of now. That could be because we tailor the solution around the product. I have not seen anything that pulls me back or is not working well for me. However, there could be better integration with the network monitoring systems. It doesn't mean it is currently not there, but there could be better discoverability with some of the network monitoring systems to be able to have more visibility. When you're setting up a control room, you can have more visibility into what is going on in the network. It has been doing that, but it can do that more.

I have been using this solution for over five or six years.

Their stability is very good. Even when they are reaching the end of life, they still have a lot of life in terms of stability. They are very durable and stable. They can run for a lot more time, but for a business, security is important, and it becomes necessary to upgrade to new models and let these devices die. We have to upgrade to the latest models because of company policy, but there is no problem with their durability or robustness.

We usually over-spec, and there is no problem with scalability. They're able to handle everything very well. In all the fields where we are using them, we haven't encountered a situation that they are not able to handle. They work fine.

In our company, they are being used at different levels. They're basically serving everyone, and there are about 500 people in our company. They serve right up to the data center.

In terms of our plans to increase its usage, a lot of discussions are going on about moving to the cloud, SD-WAN, and things like that. With the ongoing situation of the pandemic, there have been discussions about scaling down the local network and moving towards service provision for remote workers, as opposed to on-prem. We might scale down the local network and move things to the cloud and other remote access technologies.

I've not interacted much with them because I've not had a lot of issues. If there is anything, I get a lot of information from FAQs and online forums. It does not really go to the point where I've to go to Cisco's support desk. There is a lot of good documentation. They've done a good job with the documentation of it. It has always helped me.

We didn't use any other solution previously on this site. It was our go-to solution from the start because of its security and market sentiment. At different locations for different clients, we use different products, but this is what we have been using on our site.

It was straightforward. I have a lot of experience with them in different organizations and through my own career path, so it wasn't hard for me. I'm used to them.

The project was deployed in phases. Most of the time was spent on the server-side of things. The setup time for switches was very less. It took two to three hours to get them up and running. It was not a problem.

It was done in-house. We have in-house expertise.

We have four people for its deployment and maintenance, and we are able to handle it well. There are two technicians from the IT department, and the rest of them are in the management role, but when it comes to the deployment, they are able to do the physical work.

Quality comes at a price. I've been around the block a bit, and I know that good quality comes at a price. However, some of the organizations don't have big budgets, so you have to develop different solutions for them. They don't have the budget to get some of the high-end features. Cisco can consider providing entry-level hardware to suit SMBs.

I have complete confidence in this solution. It is my go-to solution when I'm organizing any network for a client. Of course, for many people, its cost could be an issue, but when you consider running a stable implementation and the risk of downtime in case of any issue vis-a-vis the initial purchase cost of the equipment, it is a no-brainer. I would suggest people take this route. If someone has the budget, they shouldn't skimp on it.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.