Cisco Wireless Reviews

I am using the wireless solution as access points for offices and for Wi-Fi. I am actually a system integrator, implementing and doing solutions for clients.

The product is reliable. When I install it, I can forget about it because there is no need for ongoing maintenance, and no other problems occur. It does not require maintenance.

From my side, there is no immediate need for improvement. However, in the long term, there could be a cost reduction because it does not require much maintenance.

I have used the solution for around eleven months.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the customer service nine out of ten.

Positive

I have a technical team for installations.

We have around eight to ten people. We mainly have technicians for installations.

The setup cost involves licenses. Sometimes it requires three to five years, and it depends on the subscription. I sometimes face issues with clients regarding this.

I am working with Huawei and Cisco.

The reliability is notable. The product is beneficial except for the fact that it's a long-term installation. It will reduce the cost of maintenance. It depends on the scenario and what they are using. If it is a critical application or not, I would evaluate before recommendation. If it is critical and requires stability, a good product they are using, like in critical sectors, for example, governance sometimes, I recommend Cisco. But in small places like offices, a cheaper solution might be suitable. I can go for other brands. Overall product rating: Eight out of ten.

We used Cisco wireless for medical centers, including remote locations where the regional GMO and RMO are situated. They required real-time connectivity to maintain in-patient reports.

Cisco is one of the leading brands, particularly in the commercial sector. Other brands such as Extreme, cater to different categories at lower levels. Cisco maintains a comprehensive product range across all levels and excels in comparison to other networking sites. They also boast a team of highly qualified professionals, a feature that sets them apart from competitors like Netgear, which lacks such expertise.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable but they have a limitation to each and every product based on the price points. If you go beyond that, there is a proxy error.
Five people are using this solution. 

We have good support from Cisco Wireless. We've never encountered any technical issues when going through them because once we follow the deployment plan and its steps, any repairs or detections are usually straightforward. If we deviate from the plan, we might encounter difficulties, as we lack the necessary tools.

The initial setup is straightforward unless it's a manageable task; otherwise, we must configure their own parameters.

For deployment, there are manuals available with instructions for both manual setup and automated setup. Based on these instructions, the technician will proceed to configure the Cisco wireless system using the provided panels.

Most devices are connected wirelessly. Previously, there were few security features, but now security measures are robust. They offer protection, so people trust the technology and use it.

The product is expensive.

They have to have a permanent license. Without a license, we can't access the cloud. There is cloud management available, but it comes with a cost.

These devices are not very complicated. They have a standard but extensive functionality that is really helpful. The standard feature is reliable data connectivity followed by bandwidth. However, the devices are almost the same because they meet the user requirements.

Mostly, government or any corporate clients will prefer a standard product in their infrastructure.

I recommend the solution depending on their budget. If they are willing to opt for a brand with prestige and reliability, then they can choose Cisco. Additionally, for a budget-friendly option, Alibaba is also available. So, if they aim to keep costs within certain limits, they can consider these options. However, government institutions may face constraints due to their funding limitations. In such environments, they may not prioritize premium solutions. Let's delve deeper into this. They might include that particular brand in a closed-end project. However, companies typically prioritize their annual costs and overall expenses.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since we have tablets, which are handheld devices that need wireless connections. Our company uses the tool for our walkie-talkies, laptops, wireless phones, and transit devices.

My company needs wireless devices and access point devices to operate our handheld devices.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance, which is okay. Cisco Wireless has good integration features and is easy to use.

What my company doesn't like about the product is related to the coverage it provides to access points, an area which is one of the most important ones for us.

One of the bad things about Cisco Wireless is that with every new wireless controller, the access points are shown as out of service. The oldest wireless access points in our company cannot, most of the time, work with the latest wireless controller offered by Cisco.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for fifteen years.

It is a very stable solution. My company uses various redundancy models since it is the most important factor for ensuring stability.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is used for around 3,000 to 5,000 devices.

Right now, my company has opted for a product from another vendor, Huawei, to increase the use of the same functionalities provided by Cisco Wireless.

As the product is stable, there has been no need to contact the tool's technical support team. The technical support team of the product is good since they have always been available anytime our company tried to contact them.

My company uses Aruba and Huawei.

My company has seen that Huawei's lifecycle management system is the best. Huawei is best for managing devices, which is why my company likes the tool. Huawei is also easily available in the market, so you can place an order and get it immediately. Huawei Office has better coverage than the devices that fall under Cisco.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

For the product's deployment phase, our company makes a plan. After the installation process of the product on an on-premises model, my company builds service accounts with the application team. In the area of the security offered by the firewall, some of the ports are kept open, after which we integrate it with the back-end devices. We use three security zones for the gateway, including the pre-shared key, captive portal, and SMS message through which users can log in to the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

As there is a need to transfer certain services from one account to another during the product's on-premises deployment phase and integration, which is taken care of by our technical personnel, it takes around a month to complete the deployment process.

Two engineers and four technicians are required to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product.

My company did not just see the help of consultants but also engineers from Cisco to help us with the product's installation process and for all the tips for the deployment and the integration with the wireless controller.

The price of Cisco Wireless is the same as that offered by Huawei.

Presently, there is no difference in the prices between Cisco and Huawei.

There is a need to renew the licenses for Cisco Wireless every three years. My company needs to pay around 25 percent of the budget meant for the tools we purchase towards the price of Cisco Wireless.

The payment made towards the licensing is not for the operational purpose of the product but towards the support, which is why it may come across as an expensive product to many.

My recommendation to others about the product depends on why they want to use it. There are so many types of wireless controllers from other vendors like Cisco, Huawei, and HP, but Cisco is the best one for stability. For the coverage Cisco Wireless provides, I won't recommend it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We have two types of controllers in our network. One is a Cisco Wireless Controller, which is software-based, and the second one is an SD-WAN Controller, which is hardware-based.

We have installed this controller in the two buildings. One is in Lahore, and one is in Karachi. In one of them, there are around 54 wireless LANs and 54 wireless routers for 200 to 300 customers, and the other one is also serving 250 to 300 customers.

We are using its latest version. It is deployed on-premises because as per the regulations, we cannot put not any controller on the cloud for the banking infrastructure. That's why we install the controller on the site.

We have installed it for secure connectivity while roaming within the building. We have four VLANs. One is the wireless one for the most senior executives. We have a grading system in the bank. The senior vice president, the executive vice president, and the president are in one group. The second VLAN or Wi-Fi is for the assistant vice president and the vice president. The third one is for all users from OG-3 officers to OG-1. The fourth one is for any guests who walk into our building, such as vendors or workers who come into the office building.

Wireless connectivity is the main feature. It is also securely integrated with ISE, which is valuable because, in the banking industry, we also cover the security aspect. This Wi-Fi controller integrates with the ISE system that we have. Every user that comes on the wireless needs to log in with the domain. If they don't, it will not allow the user to join the network. This is the key feature of this solution. If we install any other wireless, they give us MAC address binding. They also give us hardware address connectivity, but Cisco Wireless supports integration with ISE, and the ISE part is an option for the application posture. When we implement the application posture on the upper file system, if anyone connects to the network wirelessly or wired, they can only access specific applications. For example, if I give them permission only for Word and Excel, they would just be able to open Word and Excel on their laptops. If I give them access to the email system, they will just be able to open their email. This is the main benefit of the integration with Cisco ISE.

The main concern is the length and overlapping. We have to put on four to six access points on the same floor, and we face the issue of overlapping areas. If Cisco can extend the range of their indoor APs, we would need to install just one or two access points, and it would eliminate the problem of the overlapping area.

They should provide built-in features for safe authentication. Right now, we integrate with ISE and FortiClient for this feature. We first check the NAC, and after the NAC and before the domain, a token password installed on their mobile or a physical token is required to join the network. If Cisco had built-in authentication, we would be able to eliminate one product from our network.

We have been using this controller since 2012.

It is stable and reliable. In the last seven to eight years, we had zero downtime in our production environment. That's also because we have it in cluster mode. So, if one controller fails, the second one will automatically take over.

It is very easy to scale. The controller license that we currently have can handle 500 APs, but we have only 50 to 60 APs. We can just add APs and go on. We should put only 80% load on a device, so when we reach 400 APs, we need to add a controller.

We have the Cisco Wireless Controller agreement. If we face any issue, we engage our first-level support. If the issue is non-critical, such as at a branch level, we engage the second level of support. If the issue is at the core level, then we directly engage the third-level support to resolve the issue. If the issue is still not resolved, we open the case through the Cisco website, and a Cisco engineer is available. Cisco also has three levels: one, two, and three. If you have a severity level three, Cisco engages someone within 15 to 20 minutes. If the severity level is one, Cisco engages someone after two, three, or four hours. They engage as per the case severity. I am satisfied with their support.

It is straightforward. With some clicks, you can add and delete everything. It is very simple. If you have the knowledge, everything is simple. If you're untrained, you need some time to understand things.

In terms of duration, in a 10-floor building in Lahore, for a room, the cabling work and firewall configuration take three to four days. Some of the configurations can take four to five days.

We have a team of people certified in Cisco and Huawei, and we directly engage with Cisco. We eliminate other vendors, which has two benefits. One benefit is the knowledge from Cisco, and the second benefit is that it eliminates the cost of the support. When any vendor comes to your site and offers services, they charge 10% to 20% of the SLA cost.

Cisco gave us a contract team, and we directly engaged with Cisco for installation and integration. We have support at levels one, two, and three. At level four, when there is a hardware failure, we go to Cisco and open an RMA. Cisco then sends us a new product that we install personally. We don't need any vendor support.

Their maintenance is done quarterly. The hardware support team uninstalls our APs on off days, cleans them up, loads the required things, and then reinstalls them. If they find any defect in the physical box, they just open an RMA. Cisco then gives us a new product, and we install the product.

There are two people who work on the controller and access points. Customer enrollment is handled by the desktop support team, which is a 30 people team. Out of them, 10 to 15 people take care of user access. The core team has only two network guys.

The other part is the hardware support team, and for the whole bank, there are 30 to 40 people for any kind of hardware support. Any person is available to replace the AP. It is just a few-minute job. They just plug out the cable, do the installation. When APs come on the network, they directly go to the controller, and the controller updates their software and pushes the configuration. It is an easy task.

Its cost is a little bit higher than other products. Fortinet and Huawei are cheaper. If we were not a bank, I would go for Huawei or Fortinet because they are cheap, and I don't need that much security. A financial institute, a university, or a medical institute would need security to protect the customer data. That's why we buy this high-end product that has integrated security features.

I would recommend it based on the requirements. Any medical, educational, financial, and government sector can go for Cisco with closed eyes. A retail shop, store, or restaurant doesn't require Cisco. They just need internet access, and they can go with Huawei, Fortinet, Ruckus, or any other third party. You need to know your requirements before deciding on a solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

We have to set up the whole solution. The wireless network is a big part of the solution because of the mobility within the hospital. Doctors use their smartphones to access the system, so they need very stable and strong wireless connectivity. 

The hospital layout means a doctor might be quite far from the room, and there could potentially be a significant signal problem. With Cisco, we don't have this problem.

Cisco Wireless improves mobility and flexibility. The only case we are working on is with hospitals, focusing on the mobility of doctors within the hospital.

Everywhere, doctors need to be connected to the network, even within the operating theater, patient rooms, and even the basement, like the radiology department. As far as the solution goes, the coverage is usually very comprehensive.

I would rate the impact of the implementation of Cisco Wireless on the overall IT infrastructure and user experience a seven out of ten, with ten being very positive impact. 

It offers good security, coverage, and stability. I like these aspects.

For pricing, Cisco has to make an effort, or Cisco has to improve the distribution channel.

It means when I send an email or when I have a complaint, for example, there is a Cisco distributor, and it's in competition with others. 

I have to escalate this case to Cisco, and it will help us to improve our business with Cisco and prevent us from going to other solutions like Aruba or now Fortinet. We have some good switches and access point controllers now.

So, sometimes, when we find some problems with Cisco's distribution channel, we switch our customers to other brands.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Within our customers, the hospital infrastructure is established from the first day, and it's still stable. 

The hospital was 100 beds and still is, for ten years. So, we didn't really experience the scalability of this kind of solution.

So, I don't have experience with the scalability of the solution. We usually have medium-sized businesses. We work ith hospitals that have 100 to 200 beds. This is our market. We have the same kind of clients. 

The initial setup was difficult the first time, but now it's easy for us.

We have to test the coverage area; the configuration will take us one day. But to test the coverage area, it will take maybe ten days to two weeks.

We set up the whole network, including the privileged network, wireless network, and security with firewalling.

It is an expensive product. I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend using it because of my good experience with it. They are stable and secure. All good experiences.

When we transitioned to using Cisco Wireless for our network access, it significantly improved our reliability and coverage. Previously, we had sporadic access points and inconsistent configurations, leading to security issues and disruptions. We implemented a policy-based infrastructure, securing our Wi-Fi network and ensuring connectivity to our ERP and email systems.

The most valuable features for network security with Cisco Wireless were the policy enforcement capabilities. Once the approved policy was implemented, it ensured secure access and control over the network, which was crucial for maintaining security standards.       

The deployment of Cisco Wireless is centralized, offering native security features at the access points. Regarding price, it might be considered expensive, but if the features and ease of use are proven effective, it's worth it.

I have been using Cisco Wireless since the least 10 years.

The stability of Cisco Wireless was excellent, with no complaints about downtime.

Regarding scalability, our organization, being a public sector entity, didn't face scalability issues as we were already optimized. There were no plans for expansion or increasing device numbers.

We never had to contact tech support for Cisco Wireless as we didn't encounter any issues requiring assistance. Maintenance services weren't utilized, so I can't comment on their impact. 

Deploying Cisco Wireless was straightforward for us as it was managed by the IT department. We didn't encounter any major issues during deployment. The process involved assessing placement for access points across the campus to ensure seamless coverage. Deployment could be done on-premises if needed.

One piece of advice I'd give is to understand the deployment process thoroughly before starting. It's important to have a solid infrastructure design in place before implementing Cisco Wireless. Regarding cost, while it may seem expensive initially, if the features align with your needs, it's worth considering. 

Cisco Wireless needs to improve pricing. I understand that Cisco products are typically more expensive than other vendors. Therefore, I believe that adjusting the pricing could potentially be beneficial. Discounts may be available depending on the customer or type of purchase, which could help offset the higher costs.

I have been working with the product since 2008. 

Before COVID, the emphasis was primarily on wireless connectivity in specific areas like conference rooms. However, with the shift to remote work and increased mobility, coverage areas needed to be expanded to accommodate users throughout the entire location. We are beginning to expand our infrastructure. 

I wouldn't give support a ten out of ten since we may get bad engineers for support.

Positive

I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. The deployment time for a new project depends on various factors, such as the size of the network and the need for planning and gathering necessary information. The most time-consuming aspect is determining the placement of access points. However, configuring the wireless control is generally straightforward.

The maintenance required for Cisco Wireless depends on the specific deployment and deployment model. Generally, some level of maintenance will be necessary, such as keeping the software up to date.

I rate the tool's pricing a ten out of ten. It is expensive compared to Aruba and Juniper. 

The scenario where Cisco Wireless significantly improved network performance isn't directly about performance but adaptability. With the shift to remote work during COVID, everyone became more mobile. Now, returning to the office, there's less reliance on fixed connections. People need to be adaptable. We need mobile devices like laptops and tablets, which rely on wireless connections to enable this. Transitioning from a wired setup to a wireless one allows for greater adaptability.

Currently, we only have wireless control for managing the wireless network. We're seeking a solution to handle wireless and wider network management. The product integrates easily with the existing infrastructure, like routers and switches. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. Whether to recommend Cisco Wireless to others depends on several factors. If they already have a Cisco deployment of devices, it's often easier to integrate and manage, making it a suitable choice. However, other products like Aruba might be more cost-effective. Cisco Wireless is particularly well-suited for enterprise deployments. 

The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions.

In my last organization, which was a university, we used it for seven years. But in this current organization, we are not using it yet.

It is a stable solution. The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions. 

There were more than 25,000 students who were using it. It was a good experience for us because Cisco supported us in our workflow. We were facing many problems before Cisco, but after implementing it, we had great functionality. And since then, we haven't changed a single AP.

It was better than other APs in terms of wireless equipment and performance.

It is a straightforward solution. That's why we just required some technical support from a third party. At that time, when we were at the finishing side or during the landing time.

If I make a comparison with Huawei 6.0 with Cisco, Huawei is better. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Our in-house team deployed the solution. 

It was expensive. Considering the challenges faced in third-world countries like Pakistan or India, cheaper solutions are preferred. Huawei, for example, is much cheaper compared to Cisco.

We use an annual license model. 

I recommend using Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.