Cisco FabricPath Reviews

We have the solution installed in many data centers, configured in spine-leaf technology configured with Nexus. We use FabricPath and VXLAN to make our infrastructure reliable in different data centers. We have multiple layers to our environment. Data Centers A to C are connected with fiber, and we used FabricPath to enhance our data center in spine-leaf technology six to seven years ago. Internally, we had VRF to separate our routing table. We use many virtualization environments, not only Cisco, but we especially use Cisco to expand layer 2 and layer 3.

For us, there is a change between a single data center with different IP addresses to a spam data center, where the VLAN could be extended between the two, so we are able to grant the service with high availability. We can also enhance our service line with disaster recovery.

We are working on layer 3 integration to completely expand our preferred center. At the moment, we are using VRF on an internal switch, so layer 3 does not have higher availability. I want to see that improve.

We have used Cisco FabricPath for the last five or six years, and we have it installed in our data center.

FabricPath is stable. Problems come when you try to integrate a different service or something else.

The solution is very scalable because we can add new data centers by simply adding a leaf. My company has approximately 1,000 users, and we are growing year by year.

We use tech support when we need to, and we usually get a good answer.

The initial setup was slightly complex. We required around 60% of our staff to deploy the solution.

At the moment, we are looking to deploy FabricPath on-premises. We are extending the private cloud to the customer. From our data center, we are connected with Azure and Amazon. We want to create a solution like a cloud, where our data center appears as a cloud for the customer.

Before choosing FabricPath, get the right design initially to support the right tools. I rate FabricPath an eight out of ten.

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. 

We primarily use the solution for a firewall and to control viruses. It has many uses in our organization and we can manage it all through the cloud.

The fact that the solution is on the cloud is its most valuable aspect. If you are on the cloud, you can manage your network from anywhere, any place. It's very good. 

The solution also offers services for wireless, internet, firewalls, etc. Everything is in one device, which is very helpful. It's a great package solution.

The solution is very simple and offers very high levels of security for organizations.

The solution is quite expensive. They should work on lowering the cost to make it more affordable for users.

Cisco should add a few more security features to make it more robust.

The solution should offer better reporting.

We've been using this solution for six months now.

The solution is very stable. We haven't had any issues with it.

We have about 120 people in our organization using the solution. They are mostly architects and engineers.

We haven't been in touch with Cisco for this particular solution, although we were in touch with a different solution. We found their assistance to be quite good and we're very satisfied with their level of support.

We previously used Cisco's Firepower. It was much more complicated, in terms of setup, and we find Fabricpath to be much easier.

The solution is a bit complex to set up initially. It shouldn't be a problem for most IT teams to handle, however. It's much simpler than a solution like Cisco's Firepower, which we found to be quite complicated.

We didn't have vendors or integrators help us implement the solution. We did some internet research instead and watched Youtube videos. These helped us get through the process. They were quite effective.

The solution is expensive.

I would recommend the solution. I'd rate it a six 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. 

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.

The most valuable features are the lead time and the high quality of the product.

My company's been using FabricPath for the last twenty to twenty-five years.

FabricPath is stable.

FabricPath is scalable.

Cisco's technical support is very good - they always make the deadlines.

The initial setup is a little complex.

FabricPath is very reasonably priced.

In terms of future models, Cisco are already building up, so they're up to the mark in terms of digital turnaround. I would give FabricPath a score of seven out of ten.

Cisco FabricPath comes thru Cisco NX-OS Software that brings the strength and scalability of routing to Layer 2. it uses routing principles to scale the layer 2 network which is a bit difficult before that. because it provides loop prevention and mitigation within the data plane, it helps to ensure safe forwarding that is unmatched by any other bridge technology. Therefore this is most beneficial in data centers service for their applications that can use widely. 

This protocol requires less integration than a similar network based on the Spanning-Tree-Protocol.

The documents could improve for Cisco FabricPath. There are times when the relevant information is not present in the different sections of the documents, such as deployment. The documents should be more detailed and enhanced.

Having better documentation would benefit the engineers working on the solution.

I have been using Cisco FabricPath for approximately one year.

Cisco FabricPath is stable. My customers are operating the solution smoothly and there have not been any major issues.

Cisco FabricPath is scalable.

We have one client using this solution.

The support was helpful and their support is quite fast.

The initial installation was not simple. We had some difficulties since it was the first time for us. They had used documents a few times and we did seek support from Cisco. I'm happy they connected the client with the correct supporting business. They were supportive.

The whole implementation process took a few weeks.

The price of Cisco FabricPath could be reduced, it is expensive in the market here. The solution is available as perpetual, subscriptions-based, and Tier-based licensing, if the customer wants any future integrations, or if there are any future enhancements they will have to pay. Purchasing a subscription-based license gives you the opportunity to adjust/upgrade the terms of the license (such as moving from Advantage to Premier) at the time of license renewal.

I would not recommend this solution for small-scale networks because it is a bit expensive and particularly at this moment, Other than the price, I would recommend it technically. I rate Cisco FabricPath a nine out of ten.