Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We use this solution to monitor and secure devices on our network.

Using this solution gives us the ability to allow proper access to the network.

The stability of this solution needs to be improved.

It should not be necessary to go to each individual set of alarms and acknowledge them in order for them to go away. There should be a single button that can be pressed to dismiss all of the alarms at once.

This solution has problems in terms of stability. I have had certain things that do not work, and I have called technical support for help. They have sent me a patch, and then it still doesn't work, so we end up living with the problem.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to provide wireless for our residence halls and guest networks. We're also a college that works primarily off of iPads, so we have to be able to keep resident hall activity off of the network so that students can do their homework and class activities. We use the Services Engine to authorize all of them.

The biggest value of ISE is that it can get so granular with gaming systems, versus IoT and BYOD.

I'd like to see an easier way to upgrade to larger versions, as well as more best practices that are easier to locate on their support page.

I have had a very good impression of its stability.

We're actually upgrading right now from a small version to a medium-sized one. It's not as simple as I'd like it to be for scalability, but it's still working well.

We were very late adopters in the education arena of wireless. We didn't adopt until about five years ago. We had a great relationship with our partner and got to see this demo several times. It was really good.

The initial setup was complex.

The name of the company at the time was MSN but they've been recently purchased. The engineers did a really good job. I would have liked a greater share of knowledge at the time, but they did a great job in implementing a complex situation.

Cisco was the only one that we evaluated. There was also Aruba, but Cisco was really the top choice.

My advice to someone considering this solution would be to seek the most comprehensive solution for residence halls.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I would like the flow of authentication and authorization metrics to be easier to see.

We primarily use the solution for network admission control.

Previously, what used to happen is that we use to have anyone - any user, a staff member or a non-staff member, consultant contractors, etc. able to connect to our line without authentication, which I think posed a security risk. We felt that whoever connected to our network should be authenticated. We should know the person. We should have visibility to see who was connecting to our network so that we can detect anomalies. Now, we have different profiles, of different users and staff and for contractors or others. So, depending on the profile, there's control on the access that you can get.

An area that could be improved is the agent. The challenge now is that agent and most of the computers have changed. They could think about agent-less deployment. Also, I've not explored MDM but if it should be integrated. 

In terms of scalability, I think it's scalable. Quite scalable and very intricate. Easy to use and provides good support. 

We've had many issues with technical support but from the local vendor, we do get a lot of support which is good. The fact that we also did some training helped. We normally don't have so much trouble when we rescale. We see that we can fix it and then if there are issues, with the vendors and their help, we can rescale it.

Initially, the setup is a bit complex but that depends on the vendor. Maybe because of the complexities around it. Sometimes I think it's about how the best project team really does it.

The person who was put in place to implement it couldn't. So we got another vendor who was good and was a lot more experienced. It's a very new feature so we're hopeful here in Uganda. My country only has about maybe 2 or 3 clients. Those are the ones I know about, our team being one of them.

The deployment strategy was faster than the pilot. We had to see how it works and then we had to, in a transparent manner, see how it works. Deployment took about six months. But the rollout is on-going because we keep opening branches all the time, so we just keep adding them into the solution. For deployment, we used the front liner support but for documentation, we had professional staff. For deployment and maintenance, we have a small team of maybe about five to ten. 

I would give the solution 5.5 out of 10.

We use Cisco ISE for network management, user access for enterprise clients, and advanced firewall support. We use Cisco ISE on domains and clients jointly with other network software utilities.

We use Cisco ISE as our main controller for the management of clients that need to join our network.

The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products. 

Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better. 

It needs a better solution for reduced complexity.

I think to add more people to four-thousand users is going to be hard. Cisco needs to make it easier to add more people.

The Cisco ISE platform is stable.

On our network, we use Cisco ISE as a platform utility to support three thousand users.

The initial setup of the Cisco ISE platform was complex and the deployment was also difficult.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE an eight because the server is so complex. Cisco needs to re-program or re-issue it and release a new version with more adequate sizing for small businesses. 

Our company doesn't use Cisco ISE internally. We act as the solution reseller. Our business model is set up to provide a network-based approach for adaptable, trusted access to our clients. We provide our clients with intelligent, integrated protection through intent-based policy and compliance solutions.

We found that the most valuable features associated with this tool are posture assessment, policy management, VLAN assignments, guest assignment, and BYOD services. In addition to these services, the Cisco IOS software switch configuration feature is another very valuable aspect of the policy and compliance solution.

There are issues with respect to the posture assessment function. It's been observed that customers are not receiving total access to the network because the assessment agent is glitchy and malfunctions from time-to-time. I would like to see refining of the compliance assessment and adding more detailed compliance of endpoints on the user end.

We have also had to deal with some cache update issues in conjunction with Cisco's tech support team. Unfortunately, they had trouble providing suitable solutions within specific and desirable time frames.

The next release should offer more inter-operability, increased cross-integration functionality. 

We are currently experiencing stability issues with this solution.

Technical support needs improvement. There were times when my engineers had to talk to a number of different Cisco tech engineers explaining things over and over again. If their tech support has to escalate an issue our support staff is required to mediate which of course disturbs workflows.

The setup requires proper planning. We approach every customer interaction strategically taking into account the complete project scope. It's our job to understand the customer's expectations and requirements for deployment.

Initially, the setup is a bit tough with respect to the graphic user interface (GUI) tool. Cisco ISE has proven to be a bit complex as well.

The solution is sufficient and seems to require little to no maintenance from the client side. Maintenance is always in proportion to the client's needs and product deployment. For instance when we are managing two Cisco ISE boxes with two onsite engineers. As capacity grows obviously we need more engineers; it's not a 1-to-1 relationship but we always take a minimum of two certified engineers qualified to manage Cisco ISE.

I would give this solution a rating of 7 out of 10.

We are a reseller of Cisco ISE. 

So far we have had no complaints from customers. No major complaints in terms of ISE. They do complain obviously if the ISE service stops working. Normally that happens if there's a server flaw or some problem at the data center somewhere. 

There can more integration between the wireless controller management and ISE. Consolidation or integration of the controller and ISE dashboards would be great. It's not that bad but would make for simplified support if it could be combined into one dashboard.

It's very stable. We have it in on a big car rental company. We manage and we support the Cisco ISE platform for them. It's very stable and it adds a lot of value to the network.

In terms of scalability, you need to factor in your licenses. With a virtual platform, the scalability is more than sufficient. We have over one thousand users. 

We've got two engineers that look after the ISE environment.

We have emailed tech before and their support has been very good.

The initial setup was straightforward. The time it takes to implement depends from customer to customer. The most time-consuming aspect is sitting with the customer and planning out the policies and how they understand Cisco ISE. On average, with the planning sessions with the customer and the installation of ISE, it takes approximately five days.

The licensing is too expensive. There is more complexity on the wifi environment, especially with Cisco DNA versus Cisco ONE licensing. As far as the ISE licensing is concerned, it's pretty straightforward. We normally follow the ordering guide which is quite detailed, so there's no problem there.

The advice that I would give someone considering this solution is to understand the licensing. From a design perspective, we refer to the ordering guide quite frequently. The most important thing is to have a technical planning session with the customer. A lot of the time the customer doesn't really know what they want and if you don't have that upfront planning and discussion with the customer, the deployment can take much longer.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

Our primary use case is to grant access to users, we deploy the bring your own device policy.

Visitors can be granted access to the wifi network using their cellphones, notebooks or tablets in a very easy way. The ease of accessibility that anyone can have to the network is very quick and is a big improvement for our network.

The flexibility to grant anyone access to the network easily and in a secure way is its most valuable feature.

There should be an easier way to do the upgrades. Customers were having issues going from one version to the next. There are a lot of steps to get to the next version from the previous version which ends up being a bit of the headache with the upgrade. 

It's very stable. We have around 200 users and only four people are required for maintenance. 

As Cisco partners, the point is that we provide our own support. We prefer our own engineers to be ready to support the solution to provide the service to our customers.

We have seen ROI from using this solution. 

We plan to increase usage by around 20 to 30%.

It gives people the peace of mind that they have the possibility to grant access to the people that visit their premises and ensures that they are working in a safe environment that is pure and clear when they use the posture services of the solution.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution to protect the network especially when someone brings their own device and to lock out access to anybody connecting to the network. Also to make sure that the people connect to the correct VLAN. So, mainly for security wifi access so that when people want to connect to our wifi they have to log in using their credentials.

We give guests limited access to the internet when they come in so that access has been useful. Previously, we just used to give them the APN key which they would leave with. Now, we give them credentials to use that are for a limited period of time.

It is stable. Any time we found an issue we would get in touch with the reseller to help fix it. Then they tell us where the problem is and we'll know where to look. 

It is scalable. We have around 350 users. We required two staff members for maintenance but they don't have enough knowledge so we have to reach out externally for more help. 

Their technical support has been good. They have been responsive every time we have an issue. They get logs, check and then give us feedback of which corrections to do.

The initial setup was complex. We had to engage an expert. When we rolled it out we would find challenges and then we would have to find a way of fixing those challenges. Out of  nowhere, it would lock out all users. Then we discovered that no, the password had expired for the service account. We needed to make it none expiry.

Deployment took about a month. We had to do project planning, discuss the plan with the team, and by the end, it was a month.

We used a reseller for the implementation and we had a good experience with them. 

If you go directly with Cisco for the implementation it's very, very expensive.

We also looked at Aruba.

It's a good product but it requires technical support and knowledge otherwise it will be difficult to manage and run it. It requires somebody to be configuring issues. You need protection as you advance in the usage but it's a good product. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support.