Cisco Wireless Reviews

I have deployed it in a factory. I have a lot of people who come to visit from all over the globe. People come from Southeast Asia, from Europe, from South America, from the US, etc. We need to have a common platform wherein people who visit are able to log in to the corporate network. They do not need to do a guest login, they can just log in as they usually do. That's the primary use.

Since we have a central server from which our authentication is run, a user who comes from, let's say, California, doesn't have to ask any for credentials. He just comes to my network, logs in with his own username and password, and he gets access to his database. Authentication has played a big role for us, and it has given us mobility.

My IT staff no longer has to look after catering to clients who come from overseas. My staff members are busy doing their own work, and that overseas client or any other person is able to do his work without intervention from IT. This authentication scenario has saved us a lot of problems. Earlier, we had to create a guest user, give him a VPN, ensure that he logged in to his own network, and that he got access to his data. We don't have to do that now.

Authentication is the important feature for us.

There are certain features which I would want which are not there. There is always a wish list, that my WiFi should give me one, two, three, four, five. Certain things come, certain things don't, and certain things come at a cost. It fulfills about 75-80 percent of what I'm looking for. Things on my wish list are available at an additional cost but I can live without those thing, so I'm fine with it. 

It has been a fairly stable network, I have not had many problems with it. We had to upgrade the iOS once or twice, but that's about it. After that, we have not really had a problem.

We had to upgrade our access points. It's had been about six or seven years that those had been in. Scalability-wise, some of the old iOS is not supported on the new controller, but that's fine. We accepted that and we now have two products. We now have a 3800 deployed.

We have had a decent experience so far with Cisco technical support. We've not had any issues, so I would say the support has been good.

Before this solution we did not have any wireless solution, we had a stand-alone wireless. My global team wanted Cisco, so we went with Cisco. But, in a couple of other places, we've used Aruba and we're quite satisfied with it as well.

But it's something like when you prefer a certain flavor of coffee. It's not that you don't like the other coffee, but you like coffee A better than coffee B. It's just the comfort level or maybe you feel better with a certain product. So there's nothing wrong with the product that I'm currently using. I'm using Cisco and I'm quite satisfied with it. Otherwise, given a choice, given the funds, if someone were to say, “What is the next thing that you would like to move to?” because my experience with the alternate product has been really good, I would switch to that.

The setup is not really complex. It was quite easy. We had to refer to a couple of things, but I come from a background where I have that kind of experience, so it was easy for me.

The pricing is okay. I believe it is competitively priced. But it is not just the price by itself, it's the price and the technical features. The features also play a big role. It has to give me the relevant output. That is more important. Price is secondary. Price will not play a very big role because if it does not deliver what I need... For example, if I were to buy a car without an engine, that's still a car, but it is of no use. I might as well buy a car that works.

They have simplified the licensing. Now there is a single license that is required. Earlier, multiple licenses were required. Single licensing is good. As a customer, I don't need to keep an inventory of multiple licenses.

Up until now, it has been a good product, so go ahead with it. It works well. We have been happy with it for the last four years.

We use it to provide Wi-Fi solutions at business centers, malls, for healthcare, and in public parks.

For me, there are two important features:

1. WLAN grouping – Allows us to have different groups and, within those groups, specific WLANs, so there is no overlapping.
2. FlexConnect – Enables us to have remote offices at different locations. We can have a central WLC to control all the locations.
   

There is room for improvement regarding HA issues and Radius integration.

No real issues with stability. It’s pretty stable. We can have a backup, and restoring is easy.

Scalability depends on the design. It supports most variations like VOIP and Multicast. At times, we may face interference issues with other devices like 3G, 4G, or smartphones.

Cisco TAC (technical assistance center) is one of the best tech support teams around.

I did use HPE's Aruba solution, but not that extensively.

The initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who knows VLAN and radio/frequency concepts can set it up. It’s pretty self-explanatory.

Pricing is a bit on the high side compared to its competitors but we have to consider the support and usages of the solution.

Licensing is now RTU and smart licensing. We need three types of licenses, one for the:

• APs
• HA
• controller.

HPE Aruba.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at eight out of 10 because of its ease of installation on virtual platforms, on appliances. It is easy to maintain and configurations are straightforward. It provides the flexibility to create and integrate with many social Wi-Fi solutions. It is a reliable and stable solution. The ROI is very good.

Identity PSK helps save SSIDs.

The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based.

We have encountered issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Tech support could be improved. It really depends on the TAC engineer you happen to have on the phone.

Previously we used Cisco WiSM and then WiSM2.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

Never pay the full GPL price.

Extreme Networks, HPE, Huawei.

This is still a reliable and useful product but other vendors are catching up.

We don't have to use cables anymore and it gives us a variety of connections. We can do video conferencing and web conferencing, so it has been great. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its security. Cisco is very well known for security.

In terms of performance, it's really good. I have never seen it go down, at least in the office environment. Deploying it in the factory may be our next use case. A lot of noise occurs in the factory, so it could be difficult to deploy a wireless solution there. That could be a challenge.

The factory environment requires more high-density capability and there are other challenges affecting the factory environment. It's a harsh environment, but I see that Cisco's user-case allows deployment in a factory environment.

The pricing is high. It could be cheaper. Cisco is known for its high pricing.

Security and support are important factors when looking at this kind of solution. Cisco is more expensive but you have to compare the security and support you are getting. The support, in particular, is very critical, especially if you are in a conference call and the sound breaks off. You need them to get back to you quickly.

Cisco is a large company, the number-one company, and those are important factors when selecting a vendor. The other factor is the pricing, in addition to support and security.

I rate Cisco Wireless at 10 out of 10 because I have never had a problem. I am a happy customer.

We use it for WiFi for Internet, Intranet access, and VOIP in a high density area campus environment.

Wireless Voice over IP (VOIP) on a diversity of VOIP phones along with Cisco Jabber, Cisco phones, and Ascom.

Device profiling allows us to have different policies applied by ISE to wireless clients.

Many wireless controllers' firmware have bugs in their new releases, which are not stable, especially in an environment with many wireless AP (WAP) types.

To provide better WiFi reception in our office suite, while using fewer APs to cover the space.

Ability to handle a high volume of large data transfers, incorporating office maps for placement and MDM control.

• Coverage
• Mesh design
• PoE
• Web interface access
• Simplicity and aesthetics

The model we are using (Meraki MR16) has already been discontinued, for a better product line, so I believe the improvements needed have already been addressed.

The coverage range is far superior to the model that we were using.

Cisco Wireless gave us the ability to deploy and seamlessly manage wireless devices at our corporate office and remote locations.

It gave us the ability to view wireless traffic, unwanted devices on the network, and how they affected overall network performance.

• The ability to deploy wireless access points with templates.
• The ability to use campus maps to see access point coverage.

Most definitely the cost. 

I am not a fan of Cisco's software pricing model. Their management software is far too expensive.

In general, for the wireless LAN controller, Cisco is coming up with new solutions every day, they're improving their products. Networking is getting serious, becoming easier to be done for clients, configurations are becoming easier to be done. 

Cisco 5500 Wireless Controller, for example, has a number of features: 

• supports a lot of access points
• better GUI
• better management
• better control. 

If an issue comes up, the GUI of this particular wireless controller is well supported, very good to use.

Recently, one of our clients had a problem with their wireless connection at their location. The problem was that they were using the old series for the access points. We suggested that they use Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Point because, if you go to the actual data sheet of the access point, there are way more lines, the radio is better, the broadcasting system is better, the control is better.

Maybe the actual Cisco products can also be made cloud-based, though it would be competing with the Meraki. But I think that would improve the market. It would improve configuration. It would help the clients a lot, because if everything was cloud-based, we could just guide the clients through the situation, so they could do the configurations on their own. It would help the clients to save money as well.

Everything is fine. Cisco products are perhaps the most reliable on the market. While deploying, we have never faced an issue.

Different issues come up for the different companies because they need different things done in their networks, so that depends on the company. But in the deployment, hardware-wise, there isn't any problem. There is always room for the improvement but, from my perspective, no problems with stability.

I did not switch to Cisco. We suggest products based on the clients' needs. It depends on the different scenarios we come across. It depends on the clients, what their requirements are and what their budgeted is, because Cisco is more on the expensive side, as compared to Aruba, but I must say Cisco's quality is unmatched, for sure.

It’s a standard thing. For the switches it's a standard thing, for the router it's a standard thing, same with the wireless LAN controller or the access points. It's not difficult. For a person who's doing it for first time, it's going to be complicated, but once you get used to it, it’s pretty much the same thing all the time.

My suggestion would be to go with Cisco products.