Cisco Nexus Reviews

We use this solution in our data center core. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to grow into ACI.

I would like to see some development into the SAE world where you can virtualize. That would be the only thing I would like to see because I need to start virtualizing my infrastructure gear at some of the other data centers that I have.

Cisco Nexus has been very stable. No issues. It's been rock solid. We haven't had any issues with it in the last twelve months. It's been good.

The scalability of this solution meets the needs that we have. The density of it is a lot higher than the 7Ks. It's good for us from that perspective. 

I could take two 7Ks that are 16-chassis, get it down into eight and have twice as much throughput. 

The solution's technical support has been fine. We haven't had to use it much.

At this point, the newest solution was purchased out of necessity for end-of-life gear. It was a refresh. Our previous solution was 7K, 5K, 2K. 

The 2Ks and 5Ks were going end-of-life. We're starting to prepare for the 7Ks going end-of-life. We went with the Cisco Nexus 9K solutions because of this.

The initial setup of the Cisco Nexus series is very straightforward. We didn't have any issues. 

We already had a 5K, 7K, and 2K environment. Going to the 9Ks was straightforward. We were experienced in the Nexus area. It wasn't anything new.

Deployment was done by a supplier partner of ours, British Telecom. Our experience with them was good.

It's around $160K a year for our license.

We have a management contract with Cisco. They are our managed service provider. We didn't have much of a choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this product a ten because of the stability. Stability is my biggest key right now. Cisco Nexus has been stable since it was implemented last year.

It's a good product. I haven't had any issues whatsoever. 

This solution is used in our data center. It is our layer-two switches that connect all of our servers to the data center firewall. Our data center is a little bit different than most in that we're only layer-two in the data center.

We have increased the throughput of our datacenter. Where before we had switches that were two, one-gig LAG uplinks, we now have eighty-gig. This means that the underlying, layer-two network is not going to be the bottleneck of our data center anymore. It's going to be the other peripherals like our F5 and our Palo Alto that need to be upgraded to provide more throughput.

We leverage Cisco DCNM a lot, which allows us to automate. We're working toward allowing the server administrators to configure their own ports for their new servers that they're spinning up in the data center.

Our only complaint is about the licensing because it can always be a little more cost-effective.

The scalability of this solution is great. We couldn't afford to buy the ASIC solution, so we bought the Nexus 9Ks and put them in a Spine-and-Leaf topology. We then made each of the leaves their own vPC peers as well, so it allows us to have redundancy between servers.

Our local Cisco engineer was amazing during the whole process. He assisted us many times when installing and configuring the system. He also gave us advice on DCNM and how to set it up.

We've opened one tech case where we had to replace a switch because we believed there was a port that was bad. We had the new switch within one business day, so technical support has been awesome. 

We had Cisco switches in our data center that were reaching their end-of-life in a few years. We also had other vendor switches that were coming up on end-of-life, and we as a team, with our manager, decided that we wanted a one-vendor solution. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier because we wouldn't be opening up multiple tech cases to solve problems. Cisco provided the best solution for us.

The initial setup of this solution was only complex because we didn't have Nexus switches in our data center. We had a multi-vendor data center and the Cisco switches that we did have in there were the Catalyst series. So, it was only complex for us because we were learning a new platform. After we got through the learning phase, it was very simple and easy to set up.

We handled the implementation in-house and asked our local Cisco engineer for help when needed.

We have a three-year subscription for our licensing fees. For us, this product is perfect for what we need and it came at the perfect price point.

Arista and Juniper were both on the shortlist. We bought a few Juniper QFX series switches, and we did not like the product at all. We were investigating Arista, but Cisco came in with an awesome pricing plan for us, and a data center solution that met our needs. It was a lot cheaper than Arista, which is why our manager went with that selection.

This product has absolutely surpassed our expectation of throughput. The network team used to be blamed for slowness in the data center, but now we can confidently say that it has nothing to do with us. We're providing the organization with eighty-gigs of throughput in all directions to the firewalls. Troubleshooting poorly-performing applications is easier now because we can say that the bottleneck is not in the data center. 

We could be doing much more with our Nexus 9K switches, but they are not doing as much as they are capable of because we only have layer-two in our data center. This is the way our data center was set up and how the executive team wants it to be run. In larger data centers and larger companies, they're using the full capabilities.

My recommendation for anybody who is researching this solution is to ask for a demonstration from your local Cisco support. We had an awesome support engineer who did a demo with us. He brought in four switches and set up DCNM. We got to see the benefits of how DCNM would help us. We're transitioning to more automation because we have fewer people than we did, so the DCNM product is awesome. It used to be a twenty or thirty-minute process to add a VLAN in our data center, and now it takes approximately three minutes. The Cisco DCNM and the 9K switches were the beginning, to show what we can start doing as a network team to leverage the technology that we have.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for our data center layer two, layer three, infrastructure.

Our main data center has been using this solution for the past twelve months and we have had zero outages. Before that, when we were using the Catalyst 6500 series, that was not the case. The stability of this solution is a major win. 

The most valuable feature is stability because in a data center you really need that.

The consolidation of all of the layer two ports into one rack is very valuable.

I would like to see more on-device programmability, as it seems to be lacking in this platform.

The EEM has limited capabilities compared to the Catalyst 9300 series, so this can be improved.

I would like to see better support for the newer front end tools, such as the DNS center.

Stability and availability is a definite plus on the Nexus platform. It seems to have better HA capabilities compared to the older platforms.

The scalability of this solution is better than that of the traditional models. You can always add more 2k switches to a 5k underlying chassis and increase the number of ports without any other configuration. There is no additional configuration required for FEX ports.

Technical support for this solution has always been the same.

The old solution was at end-of-life.

We were using the traditional Catalyst 6500 switches with the traditional iOS. It didn't provide us with 10-gigabit ports in the data center, which is why we switched to Nexus.

The initial setup was a little bit more complex because it was a new technology that we were adopting. The learning curve was a little steeper. However, the actual deployment was pretty straightforward.

We used a reseller, World Wide Technology, to help with our deployment. Our experience with them was very good.

We have seen ROI in terms of support and business continuity.

We are a Cisco shop, so we didn't look for an alternative platform. We knew that we were going to use Cisco.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution is to train their support staff on the Nexus product before deployment, and not after the fact. Once you deploy, if the support staff has to learn while on the job then it may cause issues. It is good to invest in training prior to the implementation, especially on this platform because it is very different than the traditional iOS.

The software upgrades are also different from that of the traditional Catalyst switches, so if you are not used to doing them on this platform then you have to be careful.

The other thing that I can say is that the scalability and stability of this solution have improved when compared to previous products.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Basically, the Cisco Nexus is an L3 switch, and it offers the capabilities of L2 and L3 switches. The product is used for server farm switches and core switches, where there are big servers and data flow.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to handle big data, involving a large volume of data ranging from 3,00,000 to 9,00,000. I have experience with three types of switches from Cisco Nexus, and I know that they can handle lots of data. You can use the features you want and stop the features you don't want.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required. Cisco Nexus should lower its current prices.

I have been using Cisco Nexus for six to seven years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The scalability offered by the product is good since it is possible to scale the devices.

Cisco Nexus is a product that is used by only a few people in my company. The tool can handle our company's application data all over the country using the mobile application of Cisco Nexus. In our company, the connectivity part involving all our employees and ERP details is handled through Cisco Nexus. I can't be specific about the number of users who use Cisco Nexus. For management purposes, my company maintains Cisco Nexus for a few people, and it is maintained by two or three people from our team who are also involved with its configuration part.

The technical support for the solution is always good.

The product's initial setup phase is very easy. If a company uses SDN, which is usually used for HCI environments, then the setup phase can get a bit complex.

For deployment, you have to connect the console port to a laptop and then take care of the password setup phase before taking care of the other configurations. If your IP addresses are made local to a VPC network with high availability, you have to configure it through the console.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Cisco Nexus is not a cheaply priced product. The tool offers a perpetual-based licensing model and subscription-based licensing model. For Cisco's hardware and RMA process, you need to opt for a subscription-based licensing model.

If a client does not have enough money to afford Cisco Nexus, I recommend that they go for Juniper Networks.

In terms of network efficiency, Cisco Nexus is a good product.

The reliability offered by the product is good.

Cisco Nexus integrates very easily with our company's existing network security measures.

I always recommend the Cisco Nexus for your go for those who rely on Cisco's core switches and SDN infrastructure or Cisco's server farm switches' infrastructure. This Cisco Nexus is a very good product, considering the switches offered.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

This solution is used as the core and access switches in our largest data center. We have several of them that make up our 40-gigabit uplink.

From my perspective, this is a nice solution. These units are easy to work with and they have a lot of features that you can't get anywhere else. It gives me an unparalleled ability to build out my environment differently than I would have if I was going with another vendor. This is true even if I was going with a Catalyst model instead of a Nexus model.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its stability. We don't have any problems with them, ever. It doesn't matter how much we hammer them or load stuff up on them, they never give us any trouble. I cannot say that for many other platforms that I operate, so I am really pleased with that aspect.

The ability to troubleshoot on this model is very good, and far beyond what you get on a different model. We have had some weird issues in our data center, and this has helped us in that regard. Sometimes you need a tech to help you with it because it's a little too complex, but at least you can see the data. I wish I could say that about, pretty much, anything else I have.

I would like to see Duo directly integrated with the Nexus hardware, instead of it being through the proxies, like how Duo works today. The way it works now really irritates me.

There is a lot of depth in the Nexus class, and it would help to make this more accessible to the users. We, for instance, are using them no differently than we would a Catalyst switch with VPCs. With that in mind, some of the more in-depth features would be nice to have, so having easier access to them would be beneficial.

We have been operating for a year and a half, and we've never had one crash. I couldn't say that for most other platforms.

We have not had an opportunity to scale this solution, but it seems very scalable. The VPC, virtual port channels, and the virtual domains, together, allow you to scale endlessly. I have never seen any problems with them.

I love Cisco Smart Net. It is the best thing in the business. I've never dealt with another vendor that comes even close to Smart Net.

This solution was integrated before I started, but we used to have Cisco 7K and 5K models. When we built the new data center, which was necessary after our company split in two, the 9K made more sense. It was the right choice for us at that point.

The initial setup seemed pretty straightforward. These units were a little different, compared to the Nexus 5K that I came from. Some commands are a little different, but other than that, it was easy to do.

There are a lot of more complex features in the Nexus class that we aren't using today, so maybe it would have been harder if we were using some of those. But, for a basic setup, it was easy enough.

We used a third party, Logicalis. The sold us the product and performed the basic installation. The VPCs were built, the management and IP configuration were completed before we took it over.

I felt like we paid for more than we got, but that was ok. They got the job done and we didn't have time for it. At the end of the day, I would rate them a three out of five.

Every Cisco product is more expensive than competitors on the market, which is just a fact, but from my perspective, it is worth it.

Our company is locked into one vendor for purchasing, which is a board decision. The only time we can use another vendor is if they sell it as part of a solution. Logicalis was the only vendor that had the solution we wanted, so that's who we went with.

This solution is ACI compatible, but we did not have time to get them on ACI before we went live. As a result, they will not make it to ACI.

There is always room for improvement, but I really love this solution. These devices do not give me any headaches. I design enough solutions for our company where, if they give me headaches, they come back out. It's that simple. I don't have time to keep going back and cleaning up the solutions that I've already installed.

If you want something that that is rock solid and you don't have to worry about, then go buy yourself some Nexus 9Ks. It's that simple.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We were doing a data center migration. We extended the network from the previous location to the new location. We had about 90% of the applications work seamlessly.

Cisco Nexus helped us do an entire data center migration in under six months. The solution allowed us to be able to do that under time and budget constraints.

For a very small subset, Cisco Nexus caused port flapping within the applications, which was weird. Call it an outage. It was one specific application, i.e. because of the way the application was routed through the switches which couldn't be handled that way. 

We had the good side because 90% of it works flawlessly. We didn't have to repeat IP everything. We didn't have to go through and take everything down. We just migrated it. But that one small subset went haywire.

The stability of Cisco Nexus is excellent.

The scalability of Cisco Nexus is excellent.

Cisco customer support is very good. We have very good technical support from Cisco. They get back to you in time, usually within four hours.

The setup is straightforward. I'd like to see the firmware and code upgradability to be slightly more intuitive. We are buying a new line of data center products from Cisco.

Our implementation and setup were directly from Cisco. The experience was very good. When we had a problem or needed them on the phone, they were right there.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at a ten. For the scalability, ease of use, and the way that we were able to deploy it to the data center: it worked. It was something very steady. 

Just go with it and make sure that you have your partners lined up.

We use Cisco Nexus on our server-side. We use the product for the access switches layer. We basically take a look at the actual DNA center, however, it will be a time until we will implement the agent from Cisco again.

The solution is very easy to use.

It can implement with 40-gigabit plus technologies and gives us enormous speed. What was the one gigabit per second ten years ago, is now 10 gigabits per second. The future is likely to be 400 gigabits per second. Cisco is on its way there.

The huge capacity of Nexus is excellent.

All the frames are managed on the assets, not on software, which makes things easier. It is essentially dedicated circuit hardware, an integrated circuit for certain tasks.

We can see the functionality of the switches. The policies are very clear.

The mean time between failures and TBF value is very, very high on Cisco Nexus.

The initial setup is quite simple and straightforward.

I'm not in a good position to comment on what might be lacking. I just use the Nexus switches, and I'm very happy to use the machines.

A lot of technologies and features are present on Cisco Nexus and I haven't had a chance to dive into all of them just yet.

We had some issues, strange issues with our firewall from Cisco, however, we resolved them with Cisco. They were very, very strange issues indeed. However, they seem to originate only on our site, and not from Nexus. From my point of view, I've never seen in 20 years, a single breakdown.

They should work to make the pricing more reasonable for the local market.

The stability is excellent. I haven't witnessed a breakdown. Cisco is very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is excellent.

The solution can scale. We use it for a rather large organization.

We have just over 4,000 employees and around 20,000 active ports. Our operation is big enough that it spreads over half of Romania.

The support on offer is excellent. Everyone is helpful and responsive. We get the answers we need and support is full of ideas in terms of how to tackle issues. We're quite satisfied with them overall.

The initial setup is not too diffcult. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It's quite straightforward to execute. We simply program it over the CLI, command-line interface, and it's pretty easy to do.

The pricing is a little bit high, however, we didn't use all the facilities and when we pay for a license, we pay a lot. That said, we only use a little bit from those licenses. In the local market, this solution is considered pricey. It might be fair pricing from the point of view of Cisco, however, it may be too high from the point of view of Romanian companies.

Right now, we should upgrade our wireless LAN controller, the controller WLC, and that means that we should switch to another assembly controller and we will lose all the licenses that we already have on the actual WLCs. It's not an easy decision.

In general, Cisco products are excellent and we've been really happy with them.

I'd rate the solution, on a scale from one to ten, at a perfect ten.

It helped us have fewer physical interfaces by being able to share it with multiple virtual contacts. By doing that, we can have fewer devices and fewer physical interfaces, yet retain a more extensive logical setup. So it helps us to have a smaller footprint.

The most valuable feature of the 7700 series is probably that it lets you have multi-context, and also VPC setup, where you have two logical devices that are still separate in terms of management planes but have shared virtual port channels.

They should make sure that the back address auto is baselined. I think it might even be baselined, so it might be that one of our team members had messed that up, but it just wasn't a very straightforward command. You should have multi-context, multi-port channel enabled on the underlay of the Firepower. The way the Firepower firewalls work is they have a management plane, and then you make the virtual ASAs on the Firepower, where you're assigning multiple interfaces or core channels on there. have fewer devices and fewer physical interfaces, yet retain a more extensive logical setup.

It has been very stable so far.

It has been very scalable, from what we've seen.

The few times we have had to talk to technical support it's been pretty decent.

The previous solution we used was the Catalyst 6506 series. We switched to 7706 at that time because it was pretty much comparable to that. It was either a 6506 or moving to a 6807, which was the Catalyst's next series for the next device. The difference between the Catalyst and the Nexus was that Catalyst was doing VSS, where you kind of had two physical switches acting as one logical switch. We had had some issues, especially with upgrades of VSS, so we were trying to avoid using VSS. The 7706 is just more stable than what the Nexus 9000 was at the time we were purchasing this. The Nexus 9000 wasn't fleshed out enough yet to use as the core, so it just made sense to go with the 7706 instead.

The initial setup was pretty complex, mostly because of our environment, having to do multi-context. That's where you have a lot of different logical routes that are in one physical device, and it can get kind of complex trying to think about how to set all that up. You really have to whiteboard it out a lot.

We talked with a lot of vendors, such as Juniper, FortiGate, and some of the other players. Cisco was our chosen solution, because of the level of support and familiarity we had. A lot of us trained in Cisco.

When we were purchasing this, it was the best solution. Now, you might want to look at the Nexus 9000 solution, or maybe the Catalyst 9000 series. You might consider your environment and see what you need. Do you need personal contacts and device management? Or do you need devices acting as one switch for easy management? It just depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for more of the software-defined stuff, and this is going to be in your data center, or maybe you want ACIs, then you're obviously going to be looking at Nexus 9000 there. It just depends on your situation.

I would rate this solution as a nine or ten of ten.