Cisco Nexus Reviews

Cisco Nexus could also have better documentation.

Moreover, it would be nice if the solution offered multiple types of port support. It does not have, for example, a single switch for both internet and fiber ports. 

I have been using Cisco Nexus for around 10 years.

The solution has demonstrated stability thus far. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is fine.

For Cisco, we use Nexus and 2900.

The initial setup is easy.

As I deal with the technical aspects of the solution, I am not in a position to comment on the price. 

We consider Juniper switches to be more affordable.

I use the solution in my own company. It works.

There are around 500-plus devices being utilized in our organization. 

My advice to others is that they get initial hands-on experience in a lab environment. This should involve a proper grasp of the solution's features, such as that which concerns troubleshooting and may involve a different setup. Only at this point should one enter the production stage. 

I rate Cisco Nexus as a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution for many purposes. For example, to automate Nexus switches and to view the modern architecture network, such as SDN.

The most valuable features are the solution is robust, you are able to use it for fabric architecture as well as SPAN on exit with the controller.

Nexus switches should be able to support network function virtualization (NFV).

I have been using the solution for approximately five years.

I have found Cisco Nexus switches highly scalable.

This solution is very scalable because of the architecture. We have approximately 400 users using this solution in my organization.

I am satisfied with the Cisco support, they are very good. 

The installation is very easy and it took me approximately 10 minutes to install.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We have a few administrators that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution. We do not need a really big team because it can be automated, we need them mostly for orchestration.

I rate Cisco Nexus a nine out of ten.

We are using it for the data center. We have its latest version.

Its low latency is most valuable. Its performance is good, and it is also very stable.

The operating system needs to be improved. There should be stability in the operating system, and it should not have as many vulnerabilities.

It is very expensive. Its price could be better.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is very stable.

It is a really good scalable product. Currently, we have about 50 users. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

I don't have experience with the technical support of Cisco.

We didn't use any other solution previously.

Its installation is straightforward. It only takes 15 minutes.

We do it ourselves. We have about four admins for deployment and maintenance.

It is very expensive. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

We didn't evaluate other options.

I would recommend this solution to others. Cisco is a good vendor to work with.

I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight out of ten.

We use the solution in a data center farm.

We have found that logical tenant segregation to be the most useful feature.

The software is not as mature as it could be and needs some integration improvements with other orchestrators.

I have been using the solution for three years.

When it comes to the stability we had some issues with some software features due to a release bug. The hardware itself is pretty stable. 

The solution is scalable.

The initial installation is pretty straightforward, it takes approximately an hour. When you start with the configuration and moving forward from there, which is not only a matter of technical configuration or the key component but the integration into the environment, this can take several hours.

The solution is expensive.

I would advise others before implantation this solution to study. There are some big changes in respect to the previous concept of networking. There is a learning curve that needs to be considered.

I rate Cisco Nexus an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus for the switches. It's a switch product, and I think we have 350 users on our network.

It's easy to use, and the performance is great. I like the VRF IP route for the network. It's five minutes of work. 

The price could be better. 

I've been using Cisco Nexus for the last three years.

Cisco Nexus is stable, and the performance is great.

Cisco Nexus is a scalable product.

I have contacted technical support many times, and I am satisfied with my experience.

The installations were easy. The time to deploy depends on the model and the size of the product you will be using. But it will definitely take hours. We have ten people in our team to implement and maintain this solution. But it depends on the project. Sometimes we will have 15 people working on it.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

The problem with Cisco, from what I see, is that their costs are much higher. The costs depend on the features you need, and the license is expensive.

From a functional and technical point of view, I would recommend Cisco Nexus to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Nexus a nine.

The primary uses of this solution are for managing email servers, EIP modules, and file servers.

Cisco Nexus meets all of our requirements.

I feel that this solution should be more flexible and scalable.

We have been using Cisco Nexus for approximately seven years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. We do not have any issues with it.

Scalability needs improvement.

We use a local distributor for support, which is very expensive.

The initial setup was straightforward, and the deployment was easy.

I am not aware of the costs for this solution, it is handled by the accounting department.

I recommend this solution to other users who are interested in using it.

I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight out of 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.

The product is basically used for our entire phone system.

After implementing the product, it made things a lot easier. We have good quality as far as calls and it's pretty easy to roll out new updates. It is very accommodating to provide that for our contact center.

Quality is really the most valuable feature. Being able to interconnect components between different clusters around the globe gives us the flexibility we need. That pretty much makes what we do possible.

I don't really know any improvements that we would need right now as a company. I would say it would be nice to support more phone models in general. For us that doesn't matter as we really stick with one type of phone. There hasn't been a phone refresh — I think — in maybe five years, but I think that's kind of how Cisco rolls. They do have a 10 year run on phones.

Better monitoring would be a big thing to have. The RTMT (Real-time Monitoring Tool) is good, but I also know they're moving to a web-based solution so certain updates to current products won't be on the way. Being able to drill down and have better adaptivity going forward would be nice. But I think that concentrating on the web-based solution is their plan and the way they're going. I'm looking forward to seeing how that works out.

I think the solution is pretty stable. We are going to upgrade soon, but we've been on version 11 of Unified Communications Manager for two years. We usually try to upgrade every year, but we try to wait for a few SUs (Software Updates) and upgrade later on. We try not to be on the latest and greatest, in case of any bugs.

The scalability of the solution is very good. The only thing I don't like is that there's an 80-millisecond requirement between cluster servers. I have to have multiple clusters around the world: I can't just have one giant cluster. There are ways around that requirement, but I wish they could figure it out.

Cisco technical support is good now and has gotten better over the years. The Webex support can be a lot better as far as response. Sometimes I don't get responses for two or three days. But as far as technical support for other products, it's good.

Pretty much the product I always go to is Cisco, so that's my preference. I'm not new to the solution. It's consistent and does what we need it to.

The initial setup was straightforward. I'm the senior engineer so I've had to go through my bumps and bruises, but it's pretty much straightforward if you know what you're doing.

We didn't go with a vendor team for implementation, we did it ourselves. We do use a reseller, Continental Resource. They provide hardware for us and software licensing and all that.

We have definitely seen a return on investment as far as our contact center and when we build new offices, we can build them quickly.

I've never gone with any other type of phone systems. It pretty much has been Cisco all along.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. I think that giving it a ten would be to place it ahead of every other solution and I can't be sure that's the case. I, personally, think it's above everyone else but I haven't tried all of the solutions in order to know first-hand.

I've always been told: you never get fired if you own Cisco.