Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points Reviews

Wireless is primarily for connectivity. When you bundle with Cisco Spaces, that is where the story becomes interesting to customers. Most OEMs like Ruckus and Aruba offer basic connectivity where standards are increasing from Wi-Fi 5 to Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7. When you bundle with use cases based on the customer type, such as location-based analytics for retail customers or asset analytics for manufacturing customers, and combine the Wi-Fi with Cisco Spaces technology, the use cases increase significantly. For wireless alone, the use cases are limited to connectivity as a medium instead of using wired connections.

A few customers have utilized Bluetooth to track nearby assets within a certain radius. The utilization depends on how you look at the customer's needs. Bluetooth is highlighted as a feature when presented to customers, and if any customer is interested, it can be activated.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is valuable because of Cisco's Wi-Fi integration with Cisco Spaces, previously called DNA Spaces. When you bundle Cisco AP with Cisco Spaces, the complete wireless story comes into the picture. The first major advantage is the hardware, the chipset, the processor, and the IOS. There is unified licensing and unified iOS, and once you have DNA advantage, you can get a separate AVIX and the Wi-Fi 6 or 6E dashboard in DNAC. These advantages provide basic throughput support, OFDMA, multi-MIMO architecture, and the latest 4K QAM in Wi-Fi 7, previously 1024 QAM, and MLO in Wi-Fi 7. These functionalities exist for every OEM, but the Cisco advantage is the integration with Wi-Fi Spaces.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points includes one AP that can operate in dual mode. You can onboard it in Meraki or Catalyst, meaning on-premises or cloud controller. Single hardware can be dual OS, either Meraki OS or Catalyst OS.

For IoT and industrial wireless, Cisco has a different technology called CURV. The APs are different from the Catalyst 9000 series APs. There is a different set of series with different models working on fluid mesh architecture of Cisco CURV.

Remote troubleshooting is a basic functionality of any SDN controller these days. Engineers do not need to manually log in to the end device, which could be either a switch or an AP. From DNA Center itself, you can get visibility from the assurance. You can get client 360, network 360, and application 360 where the health scores of each individual client are clearly visible in DNAC Center. The assurance data provides visibility and highlights the issues that a particular user or particular network node is facing. You can access the device without any challenge. Similar to how SD-WAN came into the picture seven to eight years ago where you could remotely log in to the WAN edge devices and troubleshoot it, the same principle is being applied in DNAC Center for the campus, whether it is switching or WAN. If the RTT latency has been met from the branch to the place where DNAC Center is deployed, you can easily access those devices without needing an engineer to visit that particular location for troubleshooting.

If Cisco Spaces functionality could be combined into one single license within the wireless, it would be easier to sell Cisco Wi-Fi. Currently, customers need to purchase one more license of Cisco Spaces in order to achieve certain use cases. If Cisco Spaces functionality for asset tracking or analytics could be built into the wireless license design along with the wireless license being opted for, it would be better.

I have been using this solution for four years.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is stable. People with wireless infrastructure do not experience hardware failures. It is a very rare case which we generally see.

In terms of virtual and cloud, scalability will not come into the picture. In terms of hardware, it will have certain limits in terms of supporting the APs and clients. Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is a scalable product and is quite sufficient.

The tech support is fine.

Aruba, Ruckus, and Extreme are the main competitors. Juniper Mist has now become part of HPE. Aruba and Juniper Mist compete with Cisco for most premium customers. The rest of the market is very price sensitive in India. Customers can opt for D-Link, TP-Link, or NETGEAR if a good price is provided. Until they have connectivity, customers do not worry about the use cases or hardware. They just want to connect to an SSID and access the internet. Wireless is just a medium for them.

Cisco is always expensive. In terms of pricing, it is very tough because I have lost many RFPs because of the pricing where Ruckus is much less expensive. Fortinet wireless is also being adopted these days, and in terms of pricing, they are very less expensive. Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is a good product and falls in the premium category. Customers who opt only for Cisco will always be Cisco customers. Cisco is always expensive.

I am working on Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I propose a lot with the specific model called Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. The review rating for this product is 8 out of 10.

My use cases for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are as a simple access point. Most of the customers I have worked with were using them as a primary or secondary access point in their networks.

I have worked with both the lower-end and higher-end models. The lower-end models such as the 9115 or 9130 are easy to set up for small environments because I have had customers with a small number of employees, such as under 50. Those types of wireless access points are very good for those environments because you are dealing with no more than one or two floors in a building. The 9162, which I helped install for a customer last year, I really liked because it has Meraki integration. I have used other Meraki products previously, so I am familiar with the Meraki interface for their firewalls and switches. The 9162 is essentially plug and play. Once you get it on the network, it sees Meraki Cloud. In Meraki Cloud, it appears as a new device, and all you need to do is put in the license key to register it and you are done.

I have not had many issues with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points regarding deployments. The biggest issue with access points is the physical placement of them. Not every environment is the same, and when you are dealing with installations of access points, you need to find the best place to have the signal. You have to rule out environmental issues regarding the way the building is designed, walls, crawl spaces, and other factors. However, you will have that problem with any wireless access point installation. Regarding unboxing it, hooking it onto the network, and getting the firmware installed, I have not had many issues with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I appreciate the fact that they all use power over Ethernet now. This improves the setup because you do not need an extra physical power outlet to power up the device.

I would not say it is a feature issue with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. It is a quality issue. I have had some issues with some of the lower-end devices where I needed to do RMAs. For some reason, the devices either had an issue with the power supply or they got bricked after a firmware update. The one thing I have issues with is the RMA return process. I wish they would streamline that better.

I have used Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points on and off for about three years.

I have not had any issues regarding the hardware with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I know there were one or two times where some firmware updates were a bit buggy, and I had to open up a call with TAC support. They walked me through the process of rolling back the firmware to the previous state. I have not had any stability issues.

Regarding scalability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points and adding additional units, I really enjoy the fact that with the 9162, all you need to do is basic plug and play because once they get on the network and talk to Meraki Cloud, it is easy to get the devices registered and within your Meraki dashboard. This is easier to manage. If you are dealing with the non-Meraki enabled ones, such as the older Catalyst models, I would need to check what the maximum amount of access points is that you can put under the Catalyst dashboard. I think that on the lower end, for the lower-end Catalyst models, they are not really designed for large campus environments. If you are dealing with more access points, from my personal experience, if you are putting in more than five access points into a particular location, then you need to step up to something more on the enterprise level. It all basically comes down to what price point you are looking for. If you are looking for a high-end price point, then the higher-end models definitely scale well in large environments. The smaller-end Catalyst models are good for small deployments and small branch offices, but they do not scale well in larger environments.

I have dealt with Cisco TAC a couple of times regarding Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

I have not had any problems with Cisco TAC support. My only issue has dealt with the RMA side. If a TAC engineer recommends an RMA, the process of going through the RMA has not been what I would expect it to be. The turnaround time to process the RMA has not been adequate. It used to be that if you had to do an RMA, it did not take long for them to process it. You would get confirmation, a shipping label, and you would be told exactly where to send it. They have changed the process, and I cannot remember exactly when they did this, but it seems that when you process an RMA now and get the shipping information, you can only ship items back to certain locations.

I would rate Cisco TAC about a four for the support of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

I would compare Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points to Aruba because I have other customers that use Aruba products. The functionality is basically the same between Cisco and Aruba. There are slight differences between the interfaces and the command line interface. My issue with Aruba is that the command line interface is not as intuitive as I would prefer.

I would choose Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points because I have had more experience dealing with Cisco in my background. Regarding quality concerns, Aruba is probably going to edge out a bit on the lower-end devices because I have had many more issues doing RMAs on the lower-end scale of Cisco wireless access points. I do not know if it is a manufacturing issue or perhaps it is because sometimes the lower-end devices I did not get directly through Cisco but through different resellers or through other channels such as Amazon.

It really depends on Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. Many of my customers are very price-conscious right now because of the current economy. They have been gravitating more toward the smaller, lower-end devices. I would say at this point, the lower-end devices are price competitive compared to some of the other competition. However, if you want all the bells and whistles and if you want full Wi-Fi 6 and mesh capability and all that type of functionality, it is still somewhat expensive. Unless you have a big enterprise operation with more than one building on your campus, it is easy to justify the two thousand to three thousand dollar price tag for those wireless access points.

If I combine both the low end and high end of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I would give them a seven. I cannot give them a higher rating simply because of the RMA issues I have had in the past.

My central use case for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is for office connectivity. We primarily use it for mobile employees who travel between offices and need stable wireless connectivity. We have completed all our floor planning and generated heat maps and signal strength analysis. Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points serve on-premises users working in offices requiring decent bandwidth.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points support Wi-Fi 6E, which provides better bandwidth than its predecessor. We are able to perform optimizations to ensure there is no channel interference and the signal-to-noise ratio remains low. The technology uses OFDM, orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing, which delivers better bandwidth. We have these connected with Power over Ethernet switches for power delivery. The only operational technology or headless devices we have are primarily the cameras, CCTV cameras, door locks with RFID card readers, and various sensors. Those are associated with these access points.

From the security side, Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are integrated with Cisco ISE, a Network Access Control solution. It supports 802.1X authentication, which is integrated with our central Active Directory. The access points support 4K streaming. We tested 4K and 8K streaming, which turned out really well because these have multiple radios and great density with less interference. This was definitely a performance enhancement. However, we do not have teams who do a lot of audiovisual work or video editing, so this capability is overkill for our daily needs. The access points serve well if you need to download huge files without interruption.

Security measures with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points help reduce network vulnerabilities in general, particularly the known ones. If there are any vulnerabilities, we receive security advisories to identify what exists. Every vendor does this, and nothing is special about it. For unknown vulnerabilities, artificial intelligence under the hood takes care of detection. The solution gives us insights into threat intelligence that it receives from Cisco's threat intelligence platform, Talos. It alerts us about potential vulnerabilities, provides severity levels, and gives us the CVE information.

There are areas that get flagged as bugs when we raise issues with technical assistance. We receive recommendations to upgrade, and since it is a zero-touch deployment, we can push updates from a centralized DNA or wireless LAN controller, and the devices update automatically. This process is straightforward. Cisco does have bugs, and sometimes we are the ones who report bugs for the first time and then receive a fix. This is part of day-to-day business operations. The best part about all of this is that Cisco is highly proactive. When we ran a drill to quantify the time it takes for resolution, especially for bug fixes, it was less than one and a half to two days, which is quite impressive, especially for bugs that were not discovered earlier and the kind of recommendations offered. Cisco's technical assistance is one of the best.

I started working with Cisco Wireless products back in 2014. Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is the newer 9100 series. As a whole, I have been working with Cisco since around 2012, so approximately 12 years. It is not every day, but on and off. I do support infrastructure that has all the wireless components in it.

I rate the stability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points at eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as highly scalable at nine out of ten. It is highly distributed. It depends on your architecture, but it is extremely scalable. It has really good ways to curtail interference and channel noise. There are nowhere near competitors that exist.

Cisco's technical assistance is one of the best. When we ran a drill to quantify the time it takes for resolution, especially for bug fixes, it was less than one and a half to two days, which is quite impressive, especially for bugs that were not discovered earlier and the kind of recommendations offered.

Enforcement of security measures during deployment of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is plug-and-play most of the time. We do a great deal of hardening once we bring those devices in. We have a great deal of information security policies, standards, and guidelines, so we also have to ensure that we meet those benchmarks. It is fairly plug-and-play, depending on the enterprise. If you have serious security policies, then you have to harden it, and that usually takes time. A typical deployment time for me with a decent amount of security controls, if the back-end infrastructure is ready, is about two to three hours. That is fairly decent.

I cannot quantify the return on investment for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points much because we have a mix of vendors. I cannot give Cisco the credit for some fragments of the network which are handled really well by other vendors as well. The only return on investment that I can provide is that the uptime is quite high. We have drastically improved that. That improvement takes care of most of it. Second is the maintenance windows are very low because that essentially translates to uptimes. Those are crucial. With regards to the decrease in the number of access points per headcount, I cannot quantify those because we have people who are traveling all the time, so it is very difficult to say that we had one access point in the past which catered to 20 and with Cisco, we increased it to 50.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are expensive. They are definitely expensive. If I compare that with Aruba, it is certainly at least 1.5 times more expensive. If I compare those with something from Ubiquiti, those are definitely quite a bit expensive. There are a great deal of form factors. I was primarily talking about 9136, but there are a great deal of rugged access points which you actually use outside your premises. That is where Cisco does not have a potential competitor, because if you want rugged devices or if you want to house those in a factory setup, manufacturing with really bad environmental conditions, then that is where you do not have any other alternative than using Cisco. The price is, of course, justified. Within the offices, if I go with Ubiquiti or Aruba, those are considerably cheap compared to Cisco.

We do not use Cisco DNA software along with these. Cisco ISE caters to Cisco DNA Center. We have a couple of Cisco DNA, which is more from a centralized, software-defined access setup. We have these access points which are connected to fabric leaves, switches, or fabric access nodes. It is a VXLAN-based infrastructure where the access points are the VTEP, a VXLAN tunnel endpoint. We have this infrastructure. I do not think we use 9164, but I am not sure if we have 9164s as a part of the DNA fabric. We typically have deployed it in a great deal of our small offices or remote offices. These typically cater to around 300 to 400 users. DNA Center is primarily monitoring and doing all the assurance part of it, but the software-defined access piece, we are not doing that on Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. Those are typically integrated with a wireless LAN controller which is sitting in the data center, but it is not being enforced by the policies from DNA.

Cisco DNA helps with remote troubleshooting in our network absolutely. It has the assurance module, so it does tracking. It does a great deal of other things. If there are any challenges, it gives troubleshooting steps. It gives the list of all possible problems that may be causing the incident. It is really user-friendly. The level one operations can be totally eliminated, and then you can typically have your experts deal with the telemetry that DNA provides. It is definitely really awesome.

In terms of analytics and artificial intelligence analytics in Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, that is done under the hood. We do not have our own models which we train or things. It comes in along with the solution, so it is under the hood. It gives us a great deal of anomaly-based detections, which is crucial, especially for suspicious traffic which is not a known malware. Then it helps with recommendations based upon the incidents. That is definitely the scope for artificial intelligence, which is called AI-enabled, but that is under the hood, so those things are not exposed to us. We do have a couple of other things which we are doing ourselves, meaning we are taking all the telemetry that we are getting, putting it into Splunk, and then we feed it into some training models which we own or are private to us. That is primarily for our internal analysis. That is not related to Cisco or any vendor. That is our internal project.

We are not using Bluetooth Low Energy with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. There are privacy constraints around those, especially in the European Union. Employees do not sign confidentiality clauses which have these kinds of things.

I cannot quantify the extent to which I see the reduction of network vulnerabilities out of the box with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. We do send it to third-party tools in order to normalize the risk ratings for whatever we get. Based upon that, we verify the ratings. The problem is every single point solution has its own version of a risk rating. Based upon the vulnerability that has been or may not be exploited somewhere out in the world, it gives a certain risk rating, but whether that actually leads to a real risk is different. Ten different tools are going to give you ten different risk ratings and then they may not actually be your real business risk. A low risk that it flags may end up being a very high risk, and vice versa. We do send it to a centralized tool from RiskSense and we check whether we normalize those ratings and then we decide whether it is a high enough rating to actually lead to a business risk. It is not very specific to Cisco or a product. It has to be done seamlessly throughout the entire footprint.

Cisco is technically superior to competitors. There is no question about it. They are very proactive. They are highly responsive, and they are available. It also depends upon the relationship. We have a platinum contract with them, so they are available. I rate this review as eight out of ten.

My usual use cases for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points include shutting down the respective AP, restarting it, and performing a hard restart.

I use it for restarting, specifically to power on and off a specific end AP.

I find the load capacity with users of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points very valuable and useful, as the manual indicates that handling user capacity is much larger.

However, after some time, the users are not connected according to the booklet.

I see the benefit of it is that when the users go to maximum, the service is denied, and I face connectivity issues.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points has helped me improve the interaction between my network, data center, and application teams.

If the user is satisfied, then the organization services are also satisfied, and higher management will be satisfied with the overall connectivity and other applications that rely on these wireless networks.

Things are much better if the connectivity issues are resolved, although I am suffering from these APs which do not promise user strength and experience connectivity issues.

Organizations are using CMS for different network accessibilities, so if the end user faces connectivity issues, the service is compromised.

I want to diagnose and troubleshoot these issues with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, but in the end, I restart the AP and access point, and then the session timeout expires.

The new user then connects.

I have observed much channel noise with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, which is disturbing their signals and leading to connectivity issues for users.

I believe there should be improvements in channel frequency or channel bandwidth by OS level or kernel levels to improve network performance and reliability.

Proper training and regional heads must cope with these gaps to satisfy the users, which I think need to be addressed by Cisco personnel.

I want improvements in Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, particularly because there are competitive market alternatives.

Yet, we still focus on using WLC Cisco for reliability in our current organization.

I would like to improve the connectivity issues; if addressed properly, the problem would be largely resolved.

The only thing I would like to improve is the connectivity.

I have been using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for around eight to five years.

I find the reliability and stability level of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points to be very promising; the WLAN controller has about one hundred percent service availability if there are no power issues or backup plans in place.

I have never had any stability issues with the WLAN controller.

I communicate with technical support of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, especially during the initial installation, where an AP was ordered late by the vendor with a higher OS level.

A TAC case was opened, and the OS was downloaded successfully, allowing the sync to be successful.

I would rate the technical support as around seven point five, as I have experience with many devices as ISP-level coordination and frequently opening TAC cases, where the support was promising and helpful for organizations deploying Cisco devices.

Before Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I experimented with different solutions for some limited user scenarios and compared the services of Cisco with other market competitors.

I decided to stop working with previous solutions and start with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points because my expertise lies with Cisco routing and switching, so I prefer Cisco devices.

While others recommended China-related solutions, they later realized that Cisco services are much better when interruptions occur in connectivity or throughput.

I participated in the initial setup and installation of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, coordinating with the vendor for smooth installation and configuration from scratch.

I must share that there was an AP deployed at the tail end that did not sync with the wireless controller.

A TAC case was opened by the vendor, but they had low experience with TAC cases and did not provide connectivity through the console.

I managed to cope with the console, and the TAC case was opened after that.

Cisco solution provider eventually accessed the AP and downgraded the OS, resolving the syncing issue due to a version mismatch between the AP and WLAN controller.

I found the initial setup of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points straightforward because if the knowledge and configuration level is high-end, no implementation issues are observed, leading to smooth deployment of the APs over the PoE setup.

I am a customer of this solution, where there is a vendor in between.

I first implemented it in our organization, and then we just maintain the services.

I use it as an end user.

I like that, as a whole, the controller of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is performing much better, although there are connectivity issues at the AP end.

Specific APs depict these issues, but overall, the AP's performance is good.

After a restart, the accessibility is better, but then after some time, the same behavior is replicated.

There has been a decrease.

I am aware that if we compare Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points' pricing with other solutions in the market, the performance is very good.

However, the price comparison is much higher, leading many organizations to consider other options.

The performance scenario with competitor solutions is compromised, so if the price is compatible, it motivates customers to purchase Cisco solutions.

New users are reluctant to accept Cisco as discussed and may prefer China solutions or other AP solutions available in the market.

However, overall, Cisco's services throughput ensures applications work smoothly compared to competitors' solutions.

I have not noticed a major impact of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points on our operational efficiency because the throughput load capacity is very promising.

From the last four to five years, I have observed that most applications run smoothly.

However, I think the two point four GHz and five GHz bands may feel distorted by other Wi-Fi six solutions or frequency interference from other vendors, which might explain the existing issues.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points has positively impacted my organization, particularly in performance with throughput and the number of users connecting on a single AP initially.

However, over time, noise distortions have reduced AP performance to about thirty percent.

Before, the throughput would be eighty to ninety percent, but now some APs behave like twenty to thirty percent with services unavailable.

Connectivity may appear connected, but the services do not go through the wireless network.

I would rate this review eight out of ten.

I probably started using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points when I worked at a convention center here in Orlando, where I had to provide wireless service to a little over 100,000 users at one time. Currently, I do it in an office environment for an accounting firm.

My favorite thing about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is that they just work, and they work reliably. They have literally hundreds, if not thousands of hours of uptime and without an occasional reboot, they're fine.

For its use case, I think the pricing for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is perfect. You're not buying a home access point, so it has to support 200 users per access point along with a unifying controller. I think the price point is acceptable.

I would like to see an improvement in the controller that allows me to see a particular AP's mode of operation if there's any degradation of service. Any self-diagnostic hardware issues that I can look up would be beneficial.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points since about 2014.

I think the stability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is great. As an example, I have a small controller and several APs in my own home, and I forget about it all the time and it's working. The stability is excellent.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is very good. As long as you have the licensing, you can expand as many APs as you need. The good thing is that the functionality of the controller is the same whether you have five APs or 500.

I have contacted the technical support of Cisco a couple of times in the past, just for odd configuration issues, never for the AP itself.

I have never had a problem with the quality or speed of support for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. With TAC, it's usually same-day response, and they work with you through the problem to get to a solution.

I would give the support for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points a perfect score. Cisco has always been very good at supporting their products.

In places I've been, we've tried alternatives to Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points and I don't prefer the interface. The interface with Cisco has always been pretty straightforward.

The initial deployment of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is easy. As long as you have the infrastructure set up, once you connect an AP, it joins the controller on its own with very minimal effort.

For the physical deployment of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, you probably need a team to actually mount the APs, but one person can handle it if somebody else is installing the APs. It doesn't need to be a team of people working on the controller; it can be one person.

Aruba is a name I can mention as an alternative I have used myself, and ironically, before recently, I also used Meraki, which I know is Cisco. Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points and the Meraki models today are very much the same.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points do require just the occasional software update to maintain security in the hardware. Other than that, it's pretty much once you've got it going and you have your SSIDs running, it's easy to forget about it because it's working.

We have used Cisco DNA software with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. We are using Cisco Catalyst right now, and I did prefer DNAC. We're not using it currently, but I enjoyed using it. It was a really enjoyable program to learn and I thought it was a worthy successor to Prime.

I would rate the solution overall for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as a perfect ten out of ten. I appreciate the fact that they ship them in a way that they're usable for Meraki or Cisco controller. It's just a matter of what your intention is, which I appreciate because the unified hardware across the line gives you portability to another flavor of controller if you need it.

I primarily use this solution for configuring access points through a centralized app and monitoring them. I create SSIDs, enable or disable them, and secure them as needed.

When I came to this job, the system was already deployed, but I have deployed additional access points that were ordered, and that process was straightforward.

Since Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is part of the Cisco ecosystem, I appreciate the ability to connect with switches and different architectures to obtain information. We are a Cisco shop using many different Cisco applications, so the ability for them all to communicate with one another is beneficial.

This solution has improved my ability to manage our network, check the overall health of our network, and secure it. It has definitely helped us achieve zero trust, become PCI compliant, and ensure we are following all best practices for security. Our information security team aligns with us to verify that everything is secure.

I have been impressed with the ability to pinpoint specific devices or identify anything we need.

The navigation tools of the GUI could be more user-intuitive in certain areas. When trying to find a specific setting or option, it may not be in the most obvious place. This happened to me when we changed the VLANs on one of our switches and then had to change it in Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I found it in one location but missed it in another and had to go through different pages until I found the area I needed to change.

7 years

I have experienced no issues with signal strength or speed. It handles both quite well.

The reliability has been constant and the performance has been good. We have had no issues since deployment.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points has been very easily scalable. We added more access points to our location and the process was straightforward.

I have used Meraki previously in my previous job, and I appreciate it. I also favor Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

Meraki has a better GUI. When I was using Meraki previously, it was easier to configure and to visually see things. Using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is not harder, but it was a bit more difficult for me.

The initial setup was straightforward. I picked it up easily, especially since I have used wireless access controllers and access points before. It was not difficult to adjust to this ecosystem.

Apart from checking health checks, the solution did not require significant ongoing support. Once it was set up, it has been straightforward to manage. When we do encounter issues, they are not necessarily due to access point configuration. Issues have been caused by user error or changes we made, and reverting those changes resolves the problem.

This solution has improved ROI. Before implementation, coverage was lacking in certain areas. After deployment, we do not hear complaints about people not having access to needed resources. The implementation has been successful.

Since Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points integrates all components into one ecosystem, no handoff needs to occur, making the system more secure.

Our most mission-critical items are hardwired, but we do have important items connected to the wireless network, such as tablets for checking in at the branch and screens displaying promotions. While not mission-critical, these devices are important for ensuring that people entering our branch can view everything. We have had no interruptions, making this capability important to our operations. My review rating for this product is not available.

I am mostly working with Cisco access points and Cisco wireless controllers.

I am working with Catalyst 9100 Access Points and 2800 models, which are different models of access points.

My current company does not have Cisco DNA for remote troubleshooting installed in their infrastructure. I just moved to a different company. When I was working in DNAC two years ago, I was able to provide that kind of information.

In my current infrastructure, we have some instruments connected to the access points. We need to have a separate, specific model of access points with BLE enabled on them. Those specific access points can be used for low-energy instrument devices to be connected via wireless infrastructure.

Catalyst 9100 Access Points reduce network vulnerabilities. The frequency reuse technology is used in Wi-Fi 6 technology. The devices are nowadays intelligent compared to the legacy devices. They communicate with each other, adapt themselves, and improve the quality of Wi-Fi infrastructure connectivity within the premise. They are more robust and adaptable. They have significantly improved wireless connectivity compared to the legacy environment. The legacy environment was not effective with those kinds of algorithms, whereas Catalyst 9100 Access Points have different inbuilt features and are more optimized and adaptable to situations.

Catalyst 9100 Access Points provide Wi-Fi connection to end users, similar to home routers with broadband connectivity. When a technician connects the device to the modem, it starts providing Wi-Fi. The configuration is inbuilt, requiring only an IP address to operate. It listens to the wireless controller, and whatever SSID is configured in the controller will be broadcasting.

Catalyst 9100 Access Points are next-generation access points without the limitations of legacy access points. They have better reachability, signal strength, power utilization, and scalability. While legacy access points could accommodate 15 users practically, Catalyst 9100 Access Points can reach up to 40 or 50 users simultaneously on different radios with MIMO technology. There are different models of Catalyst 9100 Access Points depending on site requirements.

Wi-Fi 6 technology has improved wireless connectivity significantly. Post-pandemic, everything has become hybrid, and wireless network has become an undeniable infrastructure requirement. Previously, LAN cable connectors were used for better speed achievement. Now, Wi-Fi 6 technology has improved wireless connectivity to such an extent that LAN cable connectivity is no longer necessary. Users can work remotely with Wi-Fi connectivity, achieving both speed and scalability. The sixth-generation Wi-Fi provides improved bandwidth and security on wireless infrastructure.

With Catalyst 9100 Access Points being the best in the market for wireless infrastructure deployment, I do not see any room for suggestion. In terms of R&D, they will continue improving, but as an end user, I do not see much improvisation required.

I have been working with Catalyst 9100 Access Points for the last three or four years.

In terms of stability for Cisco access points, I would rate them 10 out of 10.

Scalability is good compared to legacy devices. Theoretically, you can connect up to 100 clients simultaneously, but practically, this is not feasible. There will be bandwidth deterioration, and 100 clients using the same bandwidth will impact the quality of service. However, scalability is very good compared to legacy devices and competitors.

I'm not working with Cisco solutions currently. In the last two or three years, I have moved on to different products after working on Cisco products.

I am an implementer, primarily on the remote side with the access point setup process. When they plug in the access point, if the switch configuration is in place, the access point automatically joins the controller. We just need to tag them in the correct roles, site, and policies, and they will start working.

I have experience with Catalyst 9100 Access Points personally. Access points do not require much application setup. They just need to be connected to the access switch port, and once connected, they will behave according to the configuration.

The initial setup for Cisco access points is plug-and-play configuration. You just need to plug it with the switch port configuration. They automatically join the controller and download the image. They are very user-friendly and simple devices. The physical layer has been replaced, with the cable to the Wi-Fi device or access point providing connectivity.

We have Juniper Mist, which is emerging, and HP access points, 40 APs as main competitors for Cisco.

Catalyst 9100 Access Points reduce network vulnerabilities. The frequency reuse technology is used in Wi-Fi 6 technology. The devices are intelligent compared to legacy devices. They communicate with each other, adapt themselves, and improve the quality of Wi-Fi infrastructure connectivity within the premise.

We do not use much on the analytics part. DNAC helps in analyzing the wireless infrastructure and understanding the score with AI technology, but my current organization does not have Cisco DNAC.

For large-scale deployment, Cisco is unmatched. For small-scale deployment, it depends on the budget because compared to Cisco's Meraki solution, other vendors offer better prices. The choice depends on the geographical zone, based on who provides the best service in their particular area, and the offers they provide to customers for procurement.

Overall rating: 10/10

We are using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as a wireless controller along with Cisco APs and Meraki APs as well as traditional Cisco APs in this pattern.

What I appreciate most about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is the GUI part of the cloud wireless controller. The cloud-based approach is easy to use and simple to deploy in the cloud environment. There is no operational cost associated with physical existence in the data center, so we can manage it with ease. The high availability and the number of AP support for the wireless controller are also valuable. Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points have helped improve the interaction between our network, data center, and application teams.

What I dislike about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is that controlling multiple APs is not centralized. We have multiple wireless controllers, and we cannot have a single pane where we can manage all the wireless controllers. In Aruba, we can manage all the wireless controllers through AirWave. In our environment with multiple Cisco wireless controllers, we cannot manage them centrally at one point.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points solution for almost ten years.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points has had some minor lagging type issues reported when we were working with one of our clients and some vendor devices and handheld devices that are wireless supported. At that time, we encountered this issue. Based on the client device, we performed an RA trace and observed that the interconnection was causing the client machine to disconnect due to a wireless issue on the device side, not from Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points side. Some configuration problems, channel interference, and overlapping channels are also causing discontinuation from the wireless network. However, the overall performance, coverage, and signal quality are good.

We can scale our network anytime with minimum cost for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. We can scale our wireless network by performing a wireless survey if we are extending our network. We can easily install Cisco APs by placing one switch and patching one point-to-point link there if there is any other site from the switch. We can enable that in a very timely manner. We can configure those SSIDs in the wireless controller. We can tag all Cisco APs in the wireless controller, and it will be ready.

Whenever we face an issue with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, we raise a ticket with Cisco TAC and receive help from Cisco TAC engineers. We can easily elaborate our issue, and they can help via Cisco Webex. If there is any application-related issue, we get proper support from Cisco.

In terms of quality and speed, the support from Cisco for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is based on the SLA. We receive support when raising a priority ticket based on the SLA. If we raise a normal ticket, we receive support accordingly. The quality is good.

I have used alternatives like Meraki and Aruba in other organizations.

The initial deployment for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points and the wireless controller is very simple and straightforward. It will take thirty minutes maximum to set up any wireless controller for the first time.

One resource is sufficient for a wireless controller upgrade or setup of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. If we have multiple sites, it becomes a project, and we have a different team for the project. However, for operation purposes, we require one resource to manage a wireless controller upgrade.

Only if we are leaving the point for centralized management of all wireless controllers, I find Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points better. When it comes to management, Aruba has more functionality to manage ClearPass and all wireless controllers of multiple sites in a single device through AirWave.

After any upgrade patches come for a wireless controller or any bugs in the existing iOS, we require an iOS upgrade for the wireless controller and APs firmware upgrade.

I have not worked with or experienced Wi-Fi 6, but for Wi-Fi 4, it is good and capable of handling a dense environment with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

We have seen some rogue APs in the environment and some outside intruders attempting to access our network with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. Our monitoring system provides alerts showing client MAC addresses attempting to reach this network. We automatically whitelist and prevent those IP addresses, MAC addresses, and devices from accessing our network.

I am not more familiar with AI-driven insights or any technology introduced in the Cisco environment for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. If any new AI-based technology or services are introduced in the wireless network, I need to look and experience the feature.

I am not certain about the pricing for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, as I am not part of the product sales team, so I am not aware of the costs.

I would rate this product seven out of ten.

The major use case is to couple that with the WLC wireless controller and push the different SSIDs on these access points to permit different devices and endpoints to connect to it.

Stability is what really stands out in the product, and what I appreciate the most is that it is not a hybrid solution—Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is a Cisco solution with the WLC controller solution, unlike Alcatel-Lucent which uses the kernel of Aruba.

DNA is a tool to manage all the devices in the same network, and the DNA center, which we call DNAC, automates a lot of things through this solution to push the configuration on different devices including switches, access points, WLCs, routers, and firewalls. We also use it for management to locate the equipment in a large network of thousands of devices by tagging and MAC addresses to troubleshoot which device gives us monitoring issues.

I do not see support for advanced wireless technologies like Wi-Fi 6 and IoT applications. There is nothing to add on this technology.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately ten years.

If the version is stable, then Cisco is very stable. Instability can be caused by not having a stable version.

All devices depend on the version. The campus network requires stable versions for all equipment to function properly.

Scalability depends on implementation and varies between campus and collapsed mode environments.

The support is good, and I would give them a nine.

Many clients migrate from Cisco to Aruba, possibly due to budget.

For the installation complexity, I would rate it a six or seven depending on the skills required to implement it.

I can see some ROI here, although I do not know the exact percentage of ROI.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is medium-priced and not very expensive.

Cisco is not similar to FortiGate as it does not use the same protocol. Cisco is similar to Aruba when coupled with ClearPass for authentication and TACACS.

In these last ten years, the projects I made were for customers, but right now, I am a client and a customer.

Cisco Wireless support for IoT is good and effective.

We do not use AI analytics in Cisco Wireless right now. We do not have that requirement.

I do not have any experience with Bluetooth Low Energy.

For the access points or the controller, I do not see any areas for improvement or any drawbacks.

There is not much in terms of potential improvement for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. The product is good on wireless.

When we connect the access points to the LAN and they are connected to the WLC, upgrading the WLC also upgrades the access points. We upgrade frequently for security.

It is very hard to hack when the access points are coupled with ISE for authentication. Security depends on the implementation for security measures.

I am satisfied with security measures.

Aruba is less expensive, which could explain the migration.

We have it on-premise now after migrating the WLC 9800 VM to 9800M.

We have been using Azure for Teams and Umbrella solutions, and also depending on Office 365.

I see two tendencies: installation complexity requires expertise and migration to Aruba is likely due to pricing.

There are no other problems, only those issues.

I would rate this review an eight overall.

My main uses for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points involve bringing all of our clients online. I work at a community college, so we have a fair amount of students and faculty and staff that use the platform.

I appreciate the flexibility of the platform, being able to add more infrastructure as needed.

In the hybrid and distributed enterprise networks, we face specific challenges that Cisco addresses. We have a hybrid environment where the majority of our infrastructure is on-premises and a small piece of that which is cloud-based through Meraki. This fits the bill for whenever we need to do some quick expansion.

I assess the impact of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points on operational efficiency in managing our wireless network as fairly simple, and it is gaining a lot more simplicity through the cloud. With our Meraki capabilities, we have a lot more metrics and visibility that we would not have without having a lot of expertise in-house. This automatically provides us with what we need.

My impression from the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is very good. We have been happy with it.

Cisco optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup. With the hybrid configuration, there are always improvements being made with our cloud-based controlled system that prevents us from having to have a lot of expertise in-house. It helps us automatically in the cloud.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as very solid. It is tried and true, it has been tested, and we have had no problems whatsoever with that particular platform.

I assess how well Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points scale with the growing needs of our organization as very easy for us. We have grown a lot over the last couple of years, and we continue to grow with our expansion of outdoor coverage. It has been very helpful.

For customer service and Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points in general, I would probably rank both of those a nine or ten.

Prior to adopting Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, one of the biggest things for us was outdoor coverage. We struggled a lot with that at the campus, so that has really been growing for us and has been a lot easier, again, using the cloud-controlled piece of the infrastructure.

I would describe my experience with deploying Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as having not too many challenges. Deployment is always very simple for us. From a physical standpoint, they have been pretty consistent with their hardware. Lifecycle management of the old for the new has been pretty compatible, so it makes it very easy for us when we go to do replacements or supplemental installs.

I have seen a lot of ROI.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing was overall good.

I give this review a rating of ten out of ten.