Cisco FabricPath Reviews

We implemented Cisco FabricPath in our networking design. Depending on cost considerations and customer preferences, we may configure Cisco or HP switches accordingly. We aim to deliver a configuration that is both cost-effective and acceptable to the customer.

Cisco FabricPath is highly beneficial for network performance and relatively easy to implement. It also offers straightforward monitoring capabilities.

Cisco FabricPath is functional in both CLI and graphical modes. From an administrator's perspective, having a graphical interface is preferable for its user-friendliness. However, it's important to note that the graphical interface often relies on Java, and compatibility with different versions of Java can be a factor. Older versions of Java may be necessary for compatibility with certain software components. While CLI management is adequate, a graphical interface offers a more intuitive experience, especially in complex environments like FabricPath.

I have been using Cisco FabricPath for over five years.

The solution's stability is good.

I rate the solution’s scalability as eight to nine out of ten. 

Technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy and takes two to three hours to complete. If the design is ready, it takes some hours to deploy.

I rate the initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The solution is neither cheap nor expensive.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

I recommend the solution since it is stable and the ROI is good.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The tool makes it easy to manage multi-layer networking and increases network efficiency. I haven't faced any challenges in integrating it into our existing infrastructure. 

Cisco FabricPath's pricing is expensive. 

I have been using the product for eight years. 

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate Cisco FabricPath's scalability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's ease of deployment an eight out of ten. It took two to three hours to complete. 

I rate the product's pricing a ten out of ten. Cisco switches cost around 15,000 dollars, and DNS licenses cost around 25,000 dollars. The total amount is 45,000 dollars, which is too expensive. 

Cisco FabricPath is suitable for enterprise businesses. I recommend it because it can increase data center efficiency and is easy to use with stable Cisco devices. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Cisco devices have consistently demonstrated high reliability and security. The acquisition of Meraki by Cisco has enhanced its capabilities, particularly in enterprise access points. The flexibility offered by Meraki, allowing remote management of access points, has significantly benefited Cisco. Overall, Cisco devices have played a crucial role in our network, and the addition of Meraki has further strengthened its position.

The durability, flexibility, and security of Cisco devices are notable. Particularly with switches, the capability to implement multiple VLANs and easily aggregate the network has been advantageous. The ability to have different VLANs and aggregate the network without complications is a key feature of Cisco FabricPath.

In terms of the series, I find that the integration with other teleconferencing applications needs to be more seamless. I have suggested to Cisco that the endpoint device should allow joining calls from Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and other teleconferencing applications. Additionally, I appreciate the recent inclusion of breakout sessions in the Cisco Webex application, which enhances its relevance in the networking field.

I have been using Cisco FabricPath for the past 15 years. 

Cisco FabricPath is highly stable, and I would rate its stability at 8.5 on a scale of one to ten, with one being low and ten being high.

The scalability of Cisco FabricPath is impressive, allowing seamless expansion from one to any desired number. Cisco has effectively addressed scalability concerns.

We switched to Cisco for the firewall from Sophos. The decision was influenced by the ease of maintenance, flexibility, and seamless integration with endpoint protection, making it a preferable choice.

I find it relatively easy to use, but it requires some basic knowledge. I would rate it around seven out of ten in terms of user-friendliness.I operate it, and the deployment took a few hours

We didn't use a third party for the deployment, and the team size varied between one and four people, depending on the defined actions. Maintenance requires one to ten people based on the network size, with smaller networks needing fewer people and larger enterprises potentially requiring more.

It is very expensive.

I would overall rate the solution 8 out of 10. 

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the infrastructure and telecommunications manager. 

Cisco has created a good balance for traffic with this solution. We can select a priority package for these products and give additional bandwidth if we need it. We're not using the load balance, it's the fabric switching that is the most important thing we do.

I'd like to see better integration with SIEM, perhaps to generate more plugins that can adapt to the traffic analyzer. We also have some issues with the technical support because in Mexico the hardware is not always readily available. We had to wait around 50 days for a part. It's crucial to have sufficient stock on hand for your customers. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We haven't had any issues with stability. We maintain the updates of the firmware and we haven't had any problems in production.

The solution is scalalble, we have around 300 users.

We used to use Avaya but we changed to Cisco because we needed some extra intelligence in the network and Avaya didn't have the hardware for that. 

The initial setup is very easy because we have good engineers. We created a template for our business and we make changes to the solution every two weeks. This is good for us and for the business. The initial deployment took two weeks. 

We have a problem with the licensing costs because all contracts are in American dollars. Mexican pesos have a disadvantage in that market, and it's a problem getting dollars in Mexico. It's also an expensive product for us. 

It's important to understand the core business of your organization, not every organization needs a solution as large as Cisco's. We only use around 30% of what this solution offers. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The solution provides a broader speed of connectivity for our applications. That means if we deploy multiple applications into our data center and we don't want a delay between our application and our storage, then we have to use Cisco FabricPath for that as well as for the storage end.

We can deploy our storage on the network and we can get a wider speed for our storage. This means we can take storage from our network to deploy to any machine, to install any server, or any application.

The setup is straightforward.

It's a scalable solution.

We've found the product to the stable. 

I can't speak to any areas that need improvement right now. 

The solution is costly.

I've used the solution for a while. I used it most recently, about ten months ago.

The solution is stable and reliable with good performance on offer. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable; we can expand it. 

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's easy; it's not complex. 

I can't speak too much on the deployment process, as I don't handle it directly.

While it is a very useful product, it is expensive. We find the value we get to be worth the money we spend. 

I haven't used any other vendor, so I can't compare anyone to Cisco.

We are a user and provide support on devices. 

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

If a company has to deploy multiple applications where the speed and the accuracy of communication matter, then I would suggest Cisco FabricPath. That said, if they have too many legacy applications or too many legacy requirements for the network, then a different type of technology could be more suitable.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Cisco FabricPath is a very good technology, and I have been using it within my profession.

The most valuable feature is the switches provided by Cisco FabricPath to users.

I don't see any weakness in the product.

The product lacks AI. AI technology should be involved in Cisco FabricPath's future releases.

I have experience with Cisco FabricPath for about eight or nine years. I am an end user of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

My company has 100 users of the product. I am the administrator of Cisco FabricPath.

I don't use the support. I am from Egypt.

I was previously using switches from 3COM.

Cisco FabricPath has many useful features over any other solution.

The initial setup of Cisco FabricPath was a bit complex. The configuration of the devices was not easy at all.

The setup process was not stable at all, so it took a day or two to deploy a switch, while multilayer switches are very complicated to handle.

The solution falls under the pricier category, but it provides value for the price charged. The exchange rates of USD and the currency of Egypt should be taken into consideration before buying any product.

Our company has to pay additionally for maintenance or support.

It is a very useful device. One must learn about the solution carefully before choosing it. There is a need for individuals to practice and train before using it.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We deploy this solution for clients who specifically request it. The solution is often deployed on-premises as per client requests.

The cloud version of Cisco Fabric Path could be improved because most of our clients choose to stay on premises because of the unstable internet service available here.

We have been using this solution for three years and are currently using the most recent version.

The solution has excellent stability. We have a client who ran a Catalyst 4506-E switch for seven years straight without switching it off. Hence, the solution's stability is impressive.

The scalability primarily depends on the size of the company we are dealing with.

Our experience with customer service and support has been excellent. The clients have been able to reach the support team. However, we also had delays before.

The initial setup process differs. It could be very basic or complex, depending on the client's needs and requests. For example, clients may request to be educated on the tools before deploying the technology in their network. At other times, the company may be moving from one solution to another. Therefore, it depends on the client's needs.

We usually request that any additional costs we may incur be included at the onset of our purchase. The licensing fees differ from one client to another. We have clients who have paid 1,000 and others who paid 3,000.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. We recommend Cisco Enterprise solutions because they're very good, stable, offer high-quality equipment and provide good value for the price.

We are using Fortinet as an additional solution as well. Apart from that, we are using an MPLS networking solution. We use Cisco alongside these. 

Overall, it's a good product. 

It's very stable.

The initial setup is pretty simple. 

The price is a little bit too high. They need to work on lowering the cost.

The GUI and OpSys would be better. Cisco should focus on something better for the GUI and figure out the interface.

I've been dealing with the solution for one and a half years. 

The solution is stable. It offers good performance. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

At this time, we have about 400 users on the solution.

We do not plan to increase usage in the next two years. 

We have always used Cisco. We have not used any other solution.

The initial setup is pretty simple, pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

We have five technical individuals that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. One is a manager and four are admins. 

The solution is pretty expensive. 

We have to pay a yearly licensing fee. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and other organizations.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. We've had a pretty positive experience overall.