Cisco Wireless Reviews

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity.

You don't have to meddle around with licenses, considering they're onboard with the access points. That took a load off when creating a build of material for a new wireless deployment. 

We didn't exactly dig deep into these yet. However, they're fairly easy to deploy. We have been using the virtual machines, the 1900 CL virtual controller. 

They're pretty stable, pretty good.

The solution is scalable. 

I like the new troubleshooting mechanism. With a couple of clicks, you can get a PCAP file, pick up the traffic from a client, and analyze it in Wireshark notepad.

I like the new way the wireless is getting built right now, so you have groups with policies that you simply apply to an access point, or you apply a group with all kinds of features like RF policies, and SSIDs to a certain access point and the back point, that access point gets those features up and running immediately or directly after a reboot.

I would like to see centralized management, something like what Aruba offers. The current issue with Cisco is I don't have centralized management. For example, we're building wireless controllers that are basically standalone, and something like a centralized, single management pane would be nice. Something like Cisco Prime, or rather, an improved version of that would be very, very good.

The initial setup can be difficult for beginners. 

It is a pricey product.

I've been using Cisco since 2012 and the new OS since 2021.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable and easily expands. 

We have been coving entire countries with a single deployment. We have a huge number of devices - likely tens of thousands. There's a swarm of incoming IoT devices, plus everyone who has a corporate phone is basically connected to the wireless.

I haven't contacted technical support. Considering we don't have a subscription, we're on our own. Cisco support is unlike Aruba, where it's free as far as I can tell. 

I also use Aruba. I've been working with Aruba for the past two years, sporadically now and then.

The initial setup is not something a beginner can deal with; it's not Cisco Meraki. Cisco Meraki is easy to deploy, yet limited in abilities. 

With this solution, you need to have some knowledge about wireless. The new Cisco IOx is an improvement over the IOS. The command line interface is good, and you can use it to deploy. 

I'd rate the ease of setup a three out of five.

Cisco is on the expensive side. 

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability of the product.

They could improve their lead times. The wait time for their equipment is very long now and the pricing is very steep for Cisco.

I'm a customer. I'm an engineer in a midsize enterprise that employs 40,000 people. It's a global company spread throughout the world. Scalability and wireless is something that we are looking for right now.

This product is great for someone who is looking to improve their connectivity. Of course, new users should check whether or not this is suited for the company. There are some cheaper, smaller solutions that they could use - even Cisco's Meraki. 

The solution we are using is big due to the fact that we have 300 or 400 access points per country, so we are using 80% of its features. We are tweaking everything from RF policies, and we're using advanced-style SSIDs like 802.1X authentication via radius, on the external radius server. We are using simple pressure key authentication. We are also using captive portal authentication with Cisco ISE. And we are also currently trying to implement a more advanced form of pressure key ossification, a segmented policy-based pressure key based on Cisco ISE, which is going to be used for the IoT devices. We get a lot out of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

There were some issues during the initial installation. You need to be very careful of the images for some reason. For example, the GUI can trick you. That's my beef with them. Sometimes not everything gets displayed correctly in the graphical user interface. One example would be I would load an image and upgrade the cluster, the virtual virus control cluster, and it would go through everything. And then after the reboot, I would see it basically didn't do anything. It didn't upgrade it. Therefore, I have to stop using the  GUI and revert to CLI. That's my concern, especially during the configuration part.

Of course, for somebody who's new to the product, the GUI is the way to go since you have everything nicely presented in the graphical user interface they really did upgrade from the previous version. They've done a good job of making the user interface somewhat friendlier and better composed than the previous versions. Yet, that's small considering that sometimes they don't display the real situation and that can be sometimes very confusing. 

Most of the routers are in the enterprise network for connections and branches. We used to use them in the data center, but we stopped.

The signal at the branch is good and has been the most valuable aspect for network management. The documentation is readily available and accessible.

The pricing could be better. It could be cheaper.

I have been using it for about ten years. 

Stability is fine.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. There are about 4,000 end users. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The documentation is available.

Normally, we start with a proof of concept for a certain environment. 

It is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would recommend others to use it. 

The main disadvantage of Cisco Wireless is its cost - it's expensive. Its interface is not easy. However, I like it since I am an engineer. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

I find the tool to be 99 percent stable.

Meraki is more scalable than Cisco Wireless.

For Cisco Wireless installation, we usually need two people. The whole deployment takes about one day. Maintenance is good for engineers, but I'm unsure about regular users. It's easy, but we need about four people to maintain the product.

I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I prefer Aruba over Cisco Wireless. It is cheaper and easier to deploy, and the Aruba system is easier to install than Cisco solutions. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for switching and routing. We also have access to resources around the local area network.

The product is compatible with a lot of mobile devices. It is easy to manage and administer.

The security must be improved. The vulnerabilities are easily exploitable. Security features must be added.

I have been using the solution for 13 years.

The tool is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is easy to scale. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have 2000 users in a single location. A user can have four to five devices.

We were using another solution, but it was incompatible with the Identity Services Engine we deployed. So, we switched to Cisco Wireless.

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The time taken for deployment depends on the number of access points we want to connect. It takes a week to deploy the tool for 1500 to 2000 devices.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. We are dependent on the dollar. There is a global economic issue.

I recommend people use the solution even if it means that they have to start small. Initially, the investment can be expensive, but the product is robust and enduring. We can use it for a very long time. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution because we consistently upgrade the laptops and desktops to ensure synchronization with the SIP set.

All the features of the solution are good. The enterprise environment seamlessly integrates with Cisco Wireless.

The solution's pricing should be improved.

I have contacted customer service and support about licenses and other technical aspects. I have not faced any issues.

In my latest company, we use Aruba Networks and Cisco Wireless on-site. We use Aruba for IPs on Azure, while Cisco Wireless is used on Azure as well due to the high cost of data processing. For Aruba, we use models like the 5747 and the latest 370 series. In addition, there are other services like the 7200 controller and the 5700 series used across various rooms.

The pricing is a bit high, and I would rate it a six on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive.

The solution is good for our environment. Overall, I rate it a perfect 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 work at a courthouse, however, we manage the data for the entire county. We have them at the Sheriff's office. They use them in commissary purchases, which is a separate SSI and separate VLAN. That's to segregate wireless traffic for different groups of people per their needs. 

We have lawyers that maybe need to reach back into the network and access their documents when they take a laptop to the courtroom with them. And so through that, we've done some radius authentication. Therefore, it's not just an SSI ID. They actually have to log in with credentials as well. 

Then, we have a guest SSID just for general public access, and that's basically running wide open. We do have a simple password audit, however, everybody knows it, and that's separated by VLAN as well and run through Palo Alto. We also have a whole different SSID for patrol units for the Sheriff's office, where they upload car videos and update their car computers wirelessly. We use it broadly. 

The solution has let us get network access to more people in different locations where wires aren't feasible - like in a garage or for the Sheriff's office uploads in courtrooms. In some of these courtrooms, you can't run additional wire due to the fact that they're historical buildings. You have to have wireless. Also, you have lawyers walking around and you don't want them tripping over stuff. It's useful in every aspect of getting public access - even for when there are events in the square, across from the courthouse. It's basically helped us better serve everybody and provided them with network access.

It always runs, and it's very reliable in terms of performance. They are very, very robust, very rugged, and can handle indoor or outdoor coverage. We typically don't have too many problems with the hardware.

The wireless LAN controllers at the time when we started rolling out, we went with it simply due to the fact that everything else worked that was Cisco. We figured, if everything else works and we're satisfied with it, let's go that route. However, now people want more access points and more spots. And if you give everybody coverage, the cost is crazy high. You can either say, "No, we can't," or you can go with the cheaper product, even slightly cheaper, plus you get more APs out there for more coverage.

At least with the WLC 2500 that we've been using, you can't take just the stock AP from them. You have to use lightweight firmware. You turn it into a lightweight AP and then you can join it to, or provision it to, the wireless controller, which should be automatic. In most cases, it works pretty well, however, it's still not there yet, as far as plugging it into this network that's going to tunnel back to the controller. I would say it works 7 out of 10 times. For the price, it should be a 10 out of 10. Especially with Cisco running an entire Cisco network with CDP all over the place, there should be no reason it doesn't tunnel back every single time. And yet, there are a few times where it doesn't.

It got to the point where, when I prevent in APs, I just take them directly to the switch that the controller is plugged into and provision them there instead of just plugging them in like you should be able to. 

The software on offer is not great. Cisco lacks in software updates, surprisingly. They don't update their firmware too much for the controller. This is not something you want to be done constantly as it does make downtime, however, I would like to see them more than once a year. Unless there's a critical flaw, or you're running an early release. They're their main releases, I want to say year after year, it's been maybe once a year, and then you have to push it out to all your APs. 

Their software's really clunky. It's not very user-friendly, which you can see that as a good thing and a bad thing. We should learn this stuff, but at the same time, it shouldn't be overly difficult. You shouldn't have your options hidden in menus. You shouldn't have to go 25 minutes deep to get to some security options for a specific SSID. 

Also the way the group their security settings is a little bit backward to me. It's not done by SSID. There's just a security tab. Then, you have to link back and forth through that. However, that's something that you're going to fight with through every controller, every different type of device. We all wish they were organized differently. 

We originally started using the solution in 2014.

We had one before then as well. Since we've gone wireless, or implemented wireless throughout the buildings here, we've always used Cisco. This is just a Cisco shop. 

The solution is extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The one issue we did have was with their mesh radios. I'm not sure that it was with the radio itself, the software in the radio. They run two different firmware. One is autonomous firmware, which they use with their AP line and then lightweight APs. With the autonomous one, there's no consistency there. For the indoor APs, you'll have lightweight firmware that you need on them. And then for the outdoor mesh radios, they're not fully autonomous, yet you have to have the autonomous software on them for the mesh feature to function. That's a little bit convoluted and I kind of wished that would just have it one way or the other.

The solution scales easily.

The number of users varies. Some days we have court cases and then you have jurors, lawyers, the media people. It varies widely. I would say on average, we have possibly 200 people a day on a slow day using it. And then on an extremely busy day, it could double that.

We use the solution quite extensively.

We do plan to increase usage, however, it won't necessarily be with this product. We'll probably like to go with a different product based on price and licensing.

Technical support is 10 out of 10. Cisco tech support is one of the best supports I've ever dealt with.

The initial setup was very straightforward. As we have added SSIDs, when we have had a hardware failure, the re-setup, for instance, is a bit more involved. When the controller itself was acting kind of finicky, we did an overnight request and got one in. Re-uploading that configuration was not as easy if that makes sense. If you're setting up a brand new device, it's very easy, very straightforward. If you're trying to restore from a backup configuration, it's not as easy. We ended up actually just resetting it up from scratch.

The deployment itself likely took three hours.

We had some bugs to work out after that, however, the majority of it was up and running within three hours.

For maintenance, you only need one person (a network admin) and then a backup person, just in case that person is on vacation or something.

We handled the setup all in-house. We do have their tech support. At one point, we did get tech on the phone and were working with them. It basically came down to firmware. The one they shipped us could not downgrade its firmware to the firmware we were running on. There was no good way to make it upload the config from an older firmware. They wanted the same firmware restorations. That was kind of a pain, however, we just ended up manually going through and resetting everything, which was not too terrible.

Cisco's APs are licensed and you need to buy them. Basically, for every AP, you have to have a license. Some of the other devices do it so that they support X amount and you can buy the licenses for zero to 20, 20 to 40, et cetera, and it's a little bit more affordable. That's kind of why I was trending towards Ruckus. They handle their licensing a little bit differently. 

Every time somebody asks "How much is a wireless access point? We need wireless in this room." Well, then you tell them the cost and mention "Oh yeah, and there's a license." It's expensive.

Users purchase each AP, and that's until the end of that product's life. If you break it down over a year, it's fairly affordable. However, nobody replaces one AP, we replace them all typically at the same time. Unless one dies or they need one expanded, as far as specific costs go, it's different for indoor and outdoor ones. It might be around $100 for a license. The internal ones are far cheaper than that. 

We had looked at Meraki before, however, the cost is just astronomical. We're a local government, so there's no money. The cost of Cisco wireless controllers has always been kind of clunky. I had heard a lot of good things about Aruba, and then I heard they were bought out by HP, however, it seems like it's still good. I was leaning more towards Ruckus based on just how it handles traffic and handles the guest VLANs and that it can do SSI de-scheduling. I still need to go back and do an in-depth read on the Ruckus option. I am leaning towards that one, even though it seems like it's a close tie.

I also looked at Ubiquity, however, from what I've read, their hardware is not really up to par when you hit saturation, and on certain days of the week here, we definitely have saturated APs due to the fact that we have court cases. You can go from the usual 10 people on an AP to possibly 40 plus people, all trying to check their internet over the wireless. It gets kind of crazy on those days.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We use the 2500 wireless controller and all the APs that go with it. 

We have Cisco switches and routers as well. We were using Cisco firewalls up until about three years ago. And then we switched to Palo Alto. As far as switching goes, still happy with their switches. They're extremely pricey, however, they last forever, and they meet a lot of government requirements that we have.

I'd recommend the solution I wouldn't hesitate to do install it if the company can afford it.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten for its ease of setup, ease of scalability, and robustness.

We have some clients with hotels who use Cisco wireless systems. Others have entertainment centers that use Cisco wireless systems. Additionally, we have retail businesses utilizing Cisco wireless systems. However, we are primarily transitioning towards TP-Link Omada systems because they do not require subscriptions, which is cost-effective for our customers.

The features include maintenance and monitoring functionalities. Additionally, knowledge-based data is available for implementation and installation scenarios. Currently, Cisco systems are highly robust but need to catch up slightly compared to Ruckus and Omada systems regarding innovation. Using alternative suppliers can be advantageous as they provide cutting-edge innovations and detailed information about roadmaps.

The security and encryption features of Cisco Wireless are robust but need to be updated compared to other providers. Cisco offers enterprise-grade encryption. Setting up a radio server based on networking filtering may require some effort to configure profiles. Once established, Cisco provides clean and straightforward possibilities for configuring functionalities like setting up a radio server system.

The solution's pricing is high. Pricing, features, and innovation are the fundamentals of choosing a provider or supplier. Despite the higher price, we migrated to other profiles like Ruckus and Omada because they offer more robust solutions. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that Ruckus is one of the top-tier providers, with Cisco falling behind.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for 5 years.

The product’s stability is great.

The internet speed is high within environments. As you move further away from the access point, there is a decline in speed. Omada or Ruckus don’t have the speed degradation as you move away from the access point.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is suited for medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We sometimes need second-line agencies because the first-line agencies may not have sufficient expertise to address complex issues.

Neutral

The initial setup depends on the complexity of the infrastructure, ranging from hours to days.

I rate the initial setup a 7 out of 10, where 1 is difficult, and 10 is easy.

The product is nearly too expensive in terms of quality. It varies depending on the project’s scope and specific requirements. Prices range from around 5000 euros to 30,000 for larger, more complex implementations.

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