Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

All Ethernet switches come in various sizes and capabilities. For example, we can have a 12-port switch, a 24-port switch, or even a 48-port switch with multiple fiber up-links. Additionally, there are different feature sets depending on the brand and model, such as IP services, LAN-based, or IP-based. Stacking is only possible with similar feature sets, which means two 9300 switches may not be stackable, but up to eight of the same model may. Additionally, the iOS and feature set capabilities may differ between the same models. All of the switches are Ethernet, but the features they are equipped with vary, which means they will operate differently. For example, a LAN-based switch will only work at primarily layer 2, whereas IP services works more as a router with features such as NAT, multicast, dynamic routing, QOS, and other additional and advanced services.

Generally, we use the switches to provide LAN access to endpoints (workstations, cameras, wireless access points, IP phones, and so on).

In most projects awarded to my organization, we used Cisco Ethernet switches.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability and durability. There is no other alternative solution that is as stable as Cisco Ethernet Switches. We can expect Cisco Ethernet Switches to last for years without issue.

We often face issues with Cisco software, and while they do release patches to fix bugs, I believe they need to improve. Huawei, one of Cisco's competitors, is better in this regard. While I'm not a fan of Huawei due to my environment, clients insist on using it because it is cheaper. Despite this, I think Cisco could improve its software. Cisco should strive to improve the software for its switches. To make the switch more user-friendly, Cisco should create a system where a user can simply connect their cable and access the GUI interface without needing to configure the device first on the CLI.

I have been using the solution for nine years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is highly scalable.

We have a good TAC support experience.

Neutral

The initial setup of a Cisco switch is straightforward for those who are technically inclined. This is because most Cisco switches are manned, meaning they require some configuration on the command line interface (CLI) before access to the graphical user interface (GUI) is granted. With a basic knowledge of the Cisco CLI, setup should take approximately 20-30 minutes.

The pricing is comparatively expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

I am using Cisco Ethernet Switches for internet usage.

The price of the solution could be reduced.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately four years.

The solution is highly reliable.

I am the only one using this solution.

The support from Cisco Ethernet Switches is great.

I rate the support from Cisco Ethernet Switches a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Cisco Ethernet Switches is straightforward. The deployment took approximately 30 minutes.

The deployment was done by myself.

The price of Cisco Ethernet Switches is expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others. This is the most reliable brand on the market.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a ten out of ten.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

Our primary use case is for ethernet switches. We mainly use switches and routers as edge distribution switches. Some of the plants have been with the big pharmaceutical company Aragon. We have also been with a North American company, and others. Most of their switches were Cisco in pharmaceutical company where I worked for 10 years.

Some of the switches in the plants were used as a core. Many of them, especially in Bulgaria and in Europe, I installed myself. Others in America are responsible during the shift time for the configuration changes and so on. They are used in any level, as a Layer 3, Layer 2, whatever. All kinds of switches are used in the different places in our LAN. 

Cisco Ethernet Switches are great devices. I remember when we decided to replace all the HP switches from the American company when they acquired us. We replaced all the core switches with 3850, except in the bigger and biggest sites where we used the 4745 switches. That was great. They are very useful and very easy to configure. It was not much trouble at all and we got a more stable network.

We have been very satisfied with using Cisco 2960 series X with EIGRP Cisco proprietary protocol. This saved us much money and worked very stably.

We also installed 47 and 3850 Switches to the main servers on the 10-gig in some places and Nexus devices using 40-gig connectivity.

We are less in the Cloud because the Cloud technologies didn't work so well. That happened in all of the companies where I've been engaged.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for a few months in my current position but I would say 20 years or more in other companies.

The stability is great. Some Aruba devices are more stable, but with Cisco, we never had problems, with some little exceptions. It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

In this company we have a single usage. I first started with Cisco routers in 1997, now we install Cisco routers all the time.

The technical support for the core switches especially, but for the rest as well, is very good. It's excellent support. Especially for the core switches we had 24/7 support. On some sites in Bulgaria we one time had a problem at midnight and they delivered that switch in time. They brought the switch very fast. Very good, excellent, technical support solution.

Also, with previous accounts with the pharmaceutical company we had access to a dedicated engineer for the project. We had access to their WAP environment. So, all told, tech support is brilliant.

I have used Aruba which is very similar to Cisco. It is also easy to manage and to install. Installing it is straightforward but I don't have too much experience with the priority. We were responsible for their LAN but they have some special requirements which we didn't touch. We didn't use all functionalities in the Aruba. We just used them as Layer 2 switches or as access switches on the main site, and on the bigger sites they had still some old HP switches.

Also, if I remember correctly, Comware had all those old HP switches. We used Aruba just as Layer 2 access devices and didn't use much of the functionalities.

I prefer Cisco. Of course, Aruba is cheaper overall but not necessarily for those small Layer 2 device access switches. I don't know what the price is now, I didn't compare each comparable device. If I had to choose, I would definitely go with the Cisco.

In terms of the initial setup, for me, with much experience, it's straightforward. With most of the switches we had a good team and prepared more than the configuration on the access sheet and then automatically generated the configuration file, just moved it to the note part, visually checking for a minute. Then copy, paste, and done. Start installing. Mounting and connecting. Straightforward.

It takes about one day for the device, if you don't count the cabling and the rack mounting and moving those and so on, and including the break, between 30 and 60 minutes, not more, for each switch. If they are stackable with some stack devices, for all of them, let's say an hour to hour and a half. Not more because we had all the configurations prepared in advance.

I you have a big client or if you have a big project and register it, the discount is good. In the companies that I have worked for, mostly for switching, we had a 55% discount or more. So with that good discount, who cares? It's cheap enough.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are appropriate for small and medium businesses. They also are large enough for our data centers which we had in Tel Aviv, Israel and in California. We had such big devices there.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches a 10.

I would advise others who are looking into implementing Cisco to buy and implement it.

Private Cloud

We primarily use the solution for access aggregation and IP routing.

The queue functionality is the solution's most valuable feature, specifically because we are delivering a lot of Layer 2 services. Layer 2 protocol tunnels work well on Cisco switches.

The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly.

Cisco should offer different equipment. Some features which are needed at present, for example, require making ethernet loopbacks for testing purposes are not available. They need to offer something like this.

I've been using the solution for 15 years.

The solution isn't quite stable. We do find a lot of bugs. 

For Level 2 switching only, it's okay. 

When you look at advanced features, from time to time we have memory issues.

Some versions of the solution can scale with a stacking option. So far, we've been satisfied with the level of scalability we can achieve. We know what we can do using the right point in the network.

We're satisfied with technical support. They answer quite fast when it comes to troubleshooting on the Cisco side. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

How long deployment takes depends on the configuration of standard features. It may take a few hours. It's more complex when we are using IP or VRF light functions.

You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation internally.

The equipment we bought with a perpetual license. We're not using a monthly or yearly licensing model. Any additional costs are reasonable. The hardware and software support came with additional costs.

We are using a variety of Cisco ranges, including 2900, 3600, 3700, 4900, and 7600 series.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

In terms of advice I'd give to those considering implementing the solution, I'd say that they should know what features they want to use in order to choose the right platform. There are solutions, such as Juniper, for example, that vary in performance and in features. Be sure to ask Cisco or any other vendor lots of questions in the design phase to ensure you're choosing the right solution for your company.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. The solution lacks some stability but it compensates by offering great features.

Few pros on the Cisco ethernet switches are: 1 )Power saving design architecture 2) CDP, Cisco network discovery protocol, Smartports which make management and port configuration extremely easy and efficient 3) Increased confidentiality with MACSec layer-2 encryption 4) StackPower which helps in increasing power availability 5) Efficient QoS with priority for critical cooling 6) Added on support with hot swap, redundant power supplies and cooling

Few cons on the cisco switches are 1) Pricing strategies 2) Gigabit EtherChannel 3) Port based ACL 4) Ingress and Egress filtering not present in all 5) IGMP snooping and ISL trunking feature not present in few good series switches

Cisco has built upon its reputation in delivering high quality ethernet switches for small scale to enterprise level needs. Whether it be the Cisco 100/200 series, a few things which standout are the energy efficient technology for Gigabit ethernet, network performance through QoS, silent operation through fan less design, IPv6 support, and the green technology approach.