Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

Devices are used across campuses covering three elementary schools and one high school; over 1000 students. The devices that are in use are MR33 with 200 installed.

Hardware features:

• Three radios: 2.4 and 5 GHz, dual-band WIDS/WIPS
• 2-stream 802.11ac and 802.11n, up to 1.3 Gbps
• Integrated BLE radio
• 2x2 MU-MIMO 802.11ac Wave 2
• Up to 1.3 Gbps aggregate dual-band frame rate
• 802.3af PoE compatible

It give us scalability, integrated enterprise security and guest access, it's self-configuring, plug-and-play deployment. It’s allowed us to deploy a wide range of wireless products, with industry-class WiFi that’s stable and able to grow with our needs.

• The latest 2×2 MU-MIMO 802.11ac Wave 2 WiFi
• Four port Gigabit Ethernet RJ45 switch
• 1.3 Gbps aggregate dual-band frame rate
• 24×7 real-time WIPS/WIDS, spectrum analytics, and WiFi
• Integrated BLE Beacon and scanning radio
• Integrated enterprise security and guest access
• Optimised for voice and video
• Self-configuring, plug-and-play deployment

Cost. 

Also, it is slow to update configurations, with cloud access, no way to configure devices locally, network data information is hard to find.

The device works very well and distributes a good signal across the four sites. Overall, during my brief use of the Meraki MR33, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface of its features. Deploying a full Meraki system provides even more features, allowing you to break down the network and identify specific points of failure. The switches can even detect cable issues which quite often can be the main cause for a call-out within my business. I would rate it nine out of 10.

We have an advanced pervasive Cisco wireless deployment across five sites in the US. We are an industrial manufacturer that has a very harsh RF environment. We make powder metal which, when in the air, makes wireless a nightmare.

We use/have used: Cisco 5520, 5508, 4400, 3504, 2504 and NME-AIR (ISR based module) controllers.

• APs today are 2800 and 1500 Series APs.  We have in the past used 1200, 3500 Series APs.
• We do a large wireless VOIP deployment at all sites too using Cisco 7921 and 8821 wireless phones.
• We do OEAP WLC for teleworkers with 1810t APs connected to a 3504 in our DMZ
• We have a MSE server for CleanAir
• Prime for management
• Work group bridges to passive IOT devices (Cranes, network PLCs,  cameras, etc.)
• Bridges to other remote buildings

We have wireless in nearly every inch of our building for voice and data access.  We can deploy our network anywhere we need it to be. It works very well. Our environment as a powder metal manufacturer makes WiFi very hard. It is like a rain storm and headlights. Cisco’s product has made a big difference in our plants.

The detail in the controller is hard to beat.

Always getting the latest and great is important to me. I think as long as they keep staying on top of their product it will be a good thing. No major issues other than the fact that it is not the easiest to use without experience. If you need a simpler setup, look at Meraki.

Primary use is for connecting staff and students' laptops, iPads, and Chromebooks.

Most of wireless controllers' features are similar, but what sets WLC, the Cisco wireless controller, apart is that it has an end-to-end solution, meaning that it's running off of Cisco switches, and a Cisco router. So all the platform, from routing to switching, is Cisco. Therefore, having a wireless controller, we can actually manage the quality of service seamlessly.

If we had chosen another product then it may not understand, or we may have to make it jump through hoops, to make it more seamless. Since across the platform, Cisco has an end-to-end solution, that sets it apart from the other vendors.

As far as the technology, pretty much everybody offers almost the same thing. It's just that they name it differently. Other than that they're the same. So the above is the reason we went with the Cisco. 

Also, because I'm Cisco Certified as far routing, switching, etc., I understand their technology. So on top of it, that also helps. I don't have to actually reinvent the wheel to make it work. So it's a  cost savings for the company, because they already hired somebody who understands Cisco products. It's a combination of those things, so we chose the Cisco wireless controller.

This product has a Clean Air Solution, which means it can detect non-WiFi signals. It not only signals but it can also detect that what type of device it is coming from. And if it needs to change the channel in order to avoid that unwanted signal, it can do so and that way the client machine will have better performance.

Also, we have also a test environment. Cisco offers a smaller version, between 25 and 50 access point controllers. It's $2000, very inexpensive. I have it in my test environment so I can do tests before I actually implement in production. That helps.

If needs to provide more visibility. It can detect and do it, but as technicians we don't have a lot of visibility into seeing exactly what's happening. It doesn't give us a lot of log information for us to troubleshoot. They probably have additional software you need to purchase to get that kind of information. But I think not all companies can afford additional software to see those kinds of details. So if the wireless controller already had, built-in, those types of things for the technician or wireless engineer, it would be more attractive for the end-user to use WLC, more than any other product.

It's very, very stable. We have hardly ever had any problems with it as far rebooting itself, or it couldn't handle the load it had, given how we initially we sized it. It hasn't caused any problems.

We've had no issues with scalability. We initially started with two controllers; as far as a failover we used technology called N+1. But N+1 did not suit our environment because we have about 750 access points throughout the campus. E1 access point can only hold 500. If that ever happened, it would mean another 250 would be hanging out there. So we changed that to 1:1. We now have four controllers. Now we're able to handle up to 1,000 access points. So scalability wasn't a problem. And, if we have to have more we could still do it. So scalability is very seamless.

I would give an A+ to tech support. It depends what kind of issue you have, they have different categories. They can remote in to view our screen and see what the problem is and can give us a recommendation and then we change it, if we think it's necessary. If it would be helpful for us then we do it, during off hours.

I have always used Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have used Aruba and other things. As I mentioned earlier, they're very similar as far the access points go. They have a similar technology, Clean Air, etc., they have it. 

The only problem is, as I mentioned, they are not using Aruba switches or routers, etc. So when an issue arises they have to finger-point to a different vendor. So I try to avoid that kind of different vendor finger-pointing. If I can have the same vendor solution and it's stable and works well, why not use them that way. If there's any problem, it is one vendor, there is no finger-pointing.

it's not really complex. If you're familiar with the technology you should be able to follow through with any of the wireless controllers or Cisco's. They're very intuitive. If you know the terminology you just have to follow through.

As far as I know Cisco is very competitive, price-wise.

Talk to your third-party vendor. It all depends on the company size - how many employees, how big the building is. If it's wireless, and you have only 50 employees but you're using a large building floor, in that case you need many access points. But if you have 50 employees using two or three rooms, then you probably don't need it and it's going to be high density, so there is a different design. So you need to talk to a subject matter expert. Talk to them and design accordingly.

When I joined this company they already had a modular for 6509 switches. So from there I migrated to a 5508 Controller. So at the time it was much easier, since the company was already are using a Cisco wireless controller. It would have been much easier for migration to the 5508. 

We did talk to Aruba about their solution and, I think, price-wise it was very similar and that's the reason we stayed with Cisco.

I rate this Cisco solution an eight out of 10. To bring it up to a 10, as I mentioned earlier, you have to get a Cisco Prime in order to view  signal strength and what's going on, which is an additional cost. You have to buy another product to manage WLC, so why not have Cisco Prime built into WLC so there is one product? That way you wouldn't need to have to buy additional software or licenses to manage WLC. It's basically: WLC manages access points, Prime manages WLC. So why not all under one umbrella, that way you don't have to jump through multiple pages to look and troubleshoot. If all is in one place it would be much easier.

If it's the first time you're implementing it, there is a different way of doing it. Now, I think, Cisco offers a different type of a wireless controller. It can be cloud-based, it can be on a switch module, or it can be just an appliance. So it's based on what your environment looks like and what kind of failover you want. Based on your needs, that's how you have to design. 

Also, look into other products and evaluate them yourself. Have a demo on your site for Aruba or Cisco and see, regarding the high density, how many clients are connecting to one access point and where the breakpoint is, those kinds of things. Evaluate yourself and go with whatever makes sense for your company.

Survey/design and deploy Cisco Wireless (3500/3600/3700) in hospitals/universities.  The object was 100% coverage with RTLS support.

The challenges are RF propagation control and saturation with RRM. Another is future-proofing capacity. In the 3700 series, ATF was the limiting factor in Cisco’s solution.

Compared to other solutions, captive guest network is one of the best isolation and tunneling. All other features of RF are average.

• The ability to disable RRM or set hybrid RRM. This provides a more granular design of RF in the environment.
• CLI controller/RF debugging.

• RRM
• ATF
• Ortho-Polarization
• AP concurrent client processing

No issues with stability.

Performance issues.

I would rate tech support 7.5 out of 10 on the RF side. Overall, it’s what you would expect for Cisco.

Switched to Cisco because of upper-level decision.

Pretty straightforward if you understand RF and what the options mean on the WLC.

Expensive.

Aruba, Aerohive, Ruckus, UBNT, Mikrotik.

I’ve been working with Cisco Wireless since 2008. Although CPI and controllers have come a long way, the AP is the limiting factor. There are a lot of assumptions in the controller algorithm.

Don’t just conduct a passive survey. Set up three APs and do an active survey with RRM enabled among three.

Cisco’s wireless solution is a seven out of 10, in my experience, compared to other solutions. It has limitations on the polarization processing.

Mobility device support. It can provide support for real-time applications, such as VoIP and Video Conferencing over wireless infrastructure.

For industrial IT (sensors, programmed logical controllers, trains, ports, mines) and IT for offices, we can support real-time information, reducing risk for people, speeding up time to market and giving real-time access to information and communications.

This is a good product but some basic configurations were missed such as:

• The bind configuration between a physical port and an IP address
• Health check for authentication/authorization server.

Three years.

No.

No.

Seven out of 10. They are slow to answer.

Yes. We switched due to company decisions.

Complex. The solution works for beginners with basic implementations.

It is an expensive solution.

Yes, Aerohive and Aruba.