Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We use Cisco Wireless WAN 9115s and 9130s. Two are controllers, and the rest, subordinates.

Cisco wireless is stable, easy to use, and simple to configure. They have an outstanding GUI.

You cannot go to different versions or different access points. 9115s cannot interact with 9120s, and 9130s can interact with 9115s. You can add or remove as many subordinates as you want. It's not an issue. It's completely logical.

Cisco support is fantastic. They're knowledgeable and responsive.

Setting up Cisco Wireless is extremely easy. I'm doing one right now, and it usually takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. You need to read the documentation carefully when implementing it because you have to go through a step-by-step configuration. Upgrading can be done in two ways: HTTP from the desktop or TFTP. HTTP is extremely easy. You connect with a console cable and do it.

We're a higher ed campus. So, we have Cisco Wireless prevalent throughout all of our buildings for students, faculty, and staff to access the network.

We are using its latest version.

Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that.

The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard.

I have about 25 years of experience. 

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

It's hit and miss with tech support. If you get a good engineer, things go well. Oftentimes, you'll get a new engineer or a first-line engineer who is not so good.

It was straightforward.

The cost of licensing should be improved.

My advice would be to negotiate the price as much as you can. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Most of my customers are demanding a wireless connectivity that seamless and  great mobility for their users. Because modern workplace now requires great collaboration and great collaboration comes from great mobility.

Cisco Wireless LAN has improved a lot of my customers organization. The best part of using wireless solution is the mobility, where my customers can work together like anywhere and anytime. They way they are working also changing after using wireless solution.

Cisco Wireless Solution comes with WiFi 6 capability that provide higher bandwidth and less usage of battery for endpoint. The visibility on the solution also comes in place when it is integrated with Cisco DNA Center. Day 2 operation is much easier because the solution provide wider visibility and analytics.

Apart from the features and benefits that Cisco Wireless LAN Solution has been given, some areas are still need to be improved. For example on part of onboarding the AP. For customer who has old version WLC (AireOS version) and want to migrate their AP to new WLC (IOS XE version) sometime requires extra effort because of DTLS certificate issue or no valid ap manager. 

Working on Cisco Gold Partner as Systems Engineer give me more than 6 years already in delivering Cisco Wireless LAN Solution. From the era of Aironet untill now becoming era of Catalyst Wireless.

Cisco Wireless LAN Solution is stable if you choose the recommended version of firmware.

Cisco Wireless LAN scalability is good. The smallest of WLC can handle up to 250 APs and the highest WLC can handle up to 6000 APs.

Cisco TAC is helpful when assisting us during troubleshooting the issue, one thing that can be improved also from Cisco Wireless Solution is to auto capture the logs and everything that need to be analyzed during troubleshooting for particular user since troubleshooting wireless need to analyze on live session.

Positive

The initial setup is less complex than it used to be and has definitely improved. There's still a way to go. Depending on the customer, deployment can take from two weeks to three months.

We implement the solutions with our implementation team.

Licensing on Cisco Wireless Solution comes in 3 types of subscriptions, DNA Essential, DNA Advantage and DNA Premier. Those 3 types licensing actually has a component which perpetual based. But at first time of buying the solution, Cisco enforced the customers to buy initial license that come with minimum of 3 years subscriptions. After 3 years passed, customer can still use the network even the license is not being renewed because there is a part on the license that perpetual. Digging deeper on to the part of subscriptions license, actually most of the features are can only use if the customer has DNA Center. So if the customer doesn't have DNA Center then mostly those features is unable to use.

Cisco Wireless LAN solutions is good enough to deliver the wireless experience for my customers, but sometimes we need to adjust or tune the configuration before get the best experience. Since Cisco is already has AI capability, I hope that in the future, the configuration will be adjusted with the baseline of customer environment. Suppose that there is learning curve process for 1 week, after that the solution will provide a report that configuration need to be fixed according to the customer environment and according to Cisco Best Practice. This report need to be evaluated by IT Admin and if it is approved, then schedule a downtime in the out of office hour for implementing the configuration.

We primarily use the solution for wireless access. It allows, for example, mobile users, to connect.

The solution has been very stable so far and the performance overall is quite good.

We have found that the product scales well.

The solution is easy to implement.

The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable. Cisco is expensive in general.

We've been using the solution for three years at this point. We've used the product for a while. 

The solution is stable. It offers very good performance. The reliability is excellent in that it doesn't crash or freeze and there are no bugs or glitches to deal with. 

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have around 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We've never had the need to contact technical support from Cisco. It's been issue-free. therefore, I can't speak to helpful or responsive they would be.

I did not switch from a different solution. We've always used Cisco.

We had no issues setting up the solution. the implementation is easy and pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex or difficult. Configuring and installation were issue-free. It doesn't take too much time.

You only need two technical people to set up and manage the product. It's not maintenance-intensive. 

The installation was pretty fast. We didn't need any help from integrators or consultants.

This is a rather expensive product.

We pay a yearly fee for the license and support services. 

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We are a hotel. We primarily use the solution for wireless access for the hotel and for accommodations. 

The stability is okay.

The product can scale well.

Technical support can be helpful.

Overall, the concept of the solution is great.

The initial setup is somewhat complex. 

I need to look deeper into the DNA of the solution before making any suggestions for the solution. I need to do more research.

Sometimes you do not get a good person helping you with technical support.

We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability.

For us, we have some power issues, and we returned many items due to power issues. There may be some models that have some problems with the power. I'm not sure about this, however, when we used some, Cisco responded clearly and they replaced them. However, this experience made us concerned about the overall stability potential.

The scalability is okay. A company can expand it if they need to.

We have over 700 people using the solution currently. They cover all types of roles and at different levels.

We likely will increase usage in the future. I already issued a purchase order to make an incremental increase to the current wireless resolution. That will be something like 5% or 7%.

In many cases, technical support is excellent. In some cases, however, they are not confident enough. They are following a checklist more than problem-solving in some cases. They repeat the same solution many times without results. The tickets are open for a long time. That said, in many cases, they are excellent.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex. It was not simple or straightforward. I'd rate my experience with the process, at a four out of five.

We deployed the solution over the course of two years.  

We both had a vendor assist us and had our in-house team handle some elements of the installation. We did not have a good experience with the third-party service provider.

The cost was a mix between the license, manpower, and hardware. It was different from layer to layer. The hard costs are only 45% of the actual costs.

I use two different versions of the solution. 

Would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for our internal and guests users. We have recently migrated to the newest version of the solution.

The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it.

The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options.

We found ourselves needing to integrate Cisco Wireless WAN with another Cisco product, called Cisco DNA, to try and receive more assurance on the data. It's another piece of hardware that you're putting onto your network. It could have been a cloud solution. Before Cisco, we used to have Cisco Prime which used to give us more in-depth analytics, such as heat maps of someone complaining about wireless access in a specific area. You could drill down into that, but you don't receive that information from the Cisco controller. We will receive the information if we implemented the DNAC solution, but it is another solution that we're implementing from Cisco. A competitor could probably do it in a better way reducing the need for multiple solutions.

Overall Cisco Wireless WAN could improve by giving more granular reporting and alerts back on issues and not having to integrate other tools onto the same platform. However, the platform is new, the interface is continually developing. Hopefully, they can improve quickly.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

I found the new version of Cisco Wireless WAN initially seemed to be quite buggy. However, the stability is good overall.

This model of Cisco Wireless WAN has good scalability. You can have ten of thousands of people using it.

We have approximately 4,000 users of this solution globally. The solution is used hourly.

The technical support from Cisco Wireless WAN is good. However, they were better before.

As people were transitioning to this Cisco Wireless WAN hardware, there wasn't as much available information online about different issues people might come across.

When determining if the implementation is going to be difficult it would depend on the topology of the sites. We're a global company, and on some of the sites where it was a standalone controller, it was straightforward to implement. However, on a different site when we were using the physical appliance, as a virtual wireless anchor that was in our own cloud, integrating that wasn't seamless.

We had help from the vendor when we were doing the implementation.

We have one person that does the maintenance and patching of the solution.

The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve upon pricing, it is expensive. We purchased the hardware through a vendor that Cisco used and we received approximately 75 percent off.

We are on a three-year license with Cisco Wireless WAN.

We evaluated the Cisco Meraki solution before we made the decision to choose the on-premise solution. One reason we choose the on-premise solution is we were already using one. When choosing which one is better, it is difficult because I did not use Cisco Meraki extensively to determine which one is best.

Since we have recently migrated to the new version of the Cisco Wireless WAN platform the interface has changed and I'm still getting used to it.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN. However, that's because my exposure is to Cisco Wireless. I'm probably a little bit biased. Overall, it's a fairly good solution.

Whether this solution is suitable or not for a company depends on their deployment, if they were a Greenfield-sized company or a Brownfield-sized company I would have different tips. It does fully depend on the scenario. My key advice is with a wireless solution is for them to do a wireless survey first before purchasing.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

The security and the capabilities of the platform are the most valuable features.

Cybersecurity is very strong.

They have good authentication and authorization that is very secure for mobile users and other users as well.

Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier. 

The dashboarding capabilities need to be improved. I want to have all of the information on one dashboard. It should show all of the details about the Wi-Fi system, how it has helped, the architectural design, and the KPIs.

Definitely, I would like to have some modules for ML built into the platform. This is something connected with AI. 

I would like more information about the user experience that should be included in the Wi-Fi process and products for every vendor. 

The user experience is important, and digital experience is how we perceive Wi-Fi in the organization. It is what we would like to have also seen on the visualizations such as dashboards.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for more than five years.

We are using the latest version.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a stable solution.

It is a very scalable solution, we are using it in an organization with more than 100,000 users.

I am satisfied with the technical support. They are awesome.

The initial setup is easy for one location. 

The problem is when you have a complex environment, as in global architecture. When trying to go with their cloud set up, sometimes you cannot.

Overall, it is easy to set up.

Pricing is always a topic of discussion. I would like to see it priced fairly. 

The pricing is based on how much is ordered from the vendor and what type of discount they receive.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

I use the solution for wireless and mobile users, data sharing and file and print servers. We use the solution for conducting nearly all our services. 

Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology. That's why we use the product, whose features we find to be very reliable.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex due to the CLI commands. It's a little bit difficult and requires us to move and to convert. Certain CLI commands we are forced to undertake.

The solution should also enable Bluetooth Low Energy devices, which serve the purpose of maintaining and managing one's tracking system. 

The new product, 802.11ax BLE, enables features for tracking devices. It can be used for antivirus protection or in the event of any risk. It is a new technology and allows one to see where things are moving. The 802.11ax incorporates the features of the Cisco 9115ax model. The feature is very good. 

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than 10 years.

The current product, 2800, we have been using in excess of two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Meetings can be scaled with ease.

We do have plans to increase the usage of Cisco Wireless WAN. 20 is the upper limit for the number of access points that we plan to purchase for deployment in our company. 

Customer and technical support are very good. 

In the past we used D-Link Access Point and it was not very good. However, it is very good when we convert this new technology in respect of the Cisco 2800 Series. With the 2800 model there have been no issues save for the one involving compliance testing of the Cambium product for the POC. After two or three months it ceased to work properly. It is not a good product. We tested the Cambium product, as well.

The CLI command complicated things a bit and required of us to move and convert and to undertake certain CLI commands. 

We deployed with the assistance of a consultant. Our experience with them was very good. 

The local vendors helped us to deploy all our infrastructure and it is good that they did so. They are very friendly and their personnel is very knowledgeable.

The pricing is good. It is neither on the high nor low side. I consider it to be moderate. While other vendors provide the same, I find this model to be reasonably priced.

The solution is good and very easy to deploy, manage and configure. We have encountered no issues in this regard. 

We now plan to convert the 802.11ac to 802.11.ax. We intend to purchase a new access point to meet the technology challenges. We are now planning to move all access points to a new access point involving 802.11.ax technology.

The number of users making use of the solution depends on the employee count. I would say that perhaps 200 users are connected daily with the access point that we have. For the moment we have a very small area. In every department we have in excess of 100 to 150 users connected to one access point. This works fine. But, depending on the user size and the type of Wireless Card the user may possess, certain users experience some difficulties due to the Wireless Card's age and its lack of compatibility. As such, it is the user size which would account for certain issues, not the product size.

My advice to others is that the product and its performance are very good and scalable. Cisco is very good and the product is nice to deploy and to work with. One can use it with freedom from any latency. Overall, the product is very good and established and the company has been working for some time to make improvements to it. This and the reputation involved are why I use the product. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN as a ten out of ten. 

We trust Cisco. It's a reliable solution. Reliability is most probably the most valuable feature for our organization.

The solution does exactly what we need it to do.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The pricing of the solution could always be better. If they could work to make the costs more competitive, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point. It's been 12 to 13 years or so. It's been a long time.

The stability of the solution is quite good. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.

The scalability potential of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

If I look just now at my area and the locations I'm responsible for, we have more than 2,000 users. However, we use the product globally, and if we look at it from that perspective, we have more than 20,000 users actively using it every day. Of course, with COVID, and people now working from home, it's likely less at the moment.

I'm pretty satisfied with the documentation as well as with the support. If we have any challenges or issues, Cisco is usually always able to help us. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive to our needs.

In terms of the initial implementation, it is always dependant on what knowledge you have and the level of experience. The more you have, of course, the easier it is. For us, it's not difficult anymore. I'd describe the process as pretty straightforward and quite easy to set up on a new site.

The solution does come with a price tag. It's not the least expensive option on the market.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We use a lot of Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst Switches, Wireless WAN, and Cisco Nexus.

We use one of the latest access points, however, we are not up to date on the newest controller versions as our versions are still supported. We plan to replace them probably in the next one or two years. It's not the latest, let's say, controller version. However, from a software standpoint, we are still up to date.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, they have to be prepared to pay the price and have the budget for the product.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities.

I've been designing wireless solutions and have been a solutions provider for over 20 years. I spec the solution based on the client's requirements and use whichever vendor device is affordable, and fits the purpose of the company's requirements.

We mainly use the WLC 5000 series. We use other Cisco products, mainly geared to smaller markets. I use Cisco and Dell devices, but mostly Cisco, as in the switching arena. I'm most familiar with cloud management and wireless Cisco solutions such as the WMM. I'm not familiar with the Cisco CSR or Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V. 

In terms of WLAN solutions, it all comes down to the business requirements and commercials. I would tend to use Cisco at the higher end if the commercial can afford it, but it also depends if it's fit for purpose on the NRL hive. I also use Ubiquiti and I've also started to look at Campion as well. But it really depends on the requirements. External, Ubiquiti, internal Cisco, and Aerohive.

The granularity of standardization and technical controls would be the big one in terms of valuable features. You can control everything, every technology within the wireless arena. It contrasts with Meraki which is very much macro-driven so you don't have the visibility of the complete engine. From an engineering and consultant perspective, I want full control. The Cisco WLC solution supplies that in the form they have at the moment, but I know that they changed the UI a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen it but as it exists at the moment I'm on 8.5 or 8.6 of the code up, but they're using the code that they use on the WLCs and not what would be the new version, which I believe is different.

With the WMM there are a few bits and pieces missing that some of the other vendors have. Cisco has a bad habit, although they'd probably see it as a good habit, of not applying extras. I want more managing features. Cisco would love you to go and buy Cisco Prime, which is very expensive, especially if you want to get reports active for the SME market. They generally don't add to existing products and are actually outpricing themselves. Cisco needs to realize that if they want to reach a global market, there are many markets within that. They need a price point that allies a smaller market and sometimes a specific country. I work in Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is very much SMB, and Cisco has priced themselves out of that market. From a management perspective, if I want to get good reports and good troubleshooting capabilities, I have to go and buy an additional product, Prime or another product that they facilitate. Aerohive products and the like have that under the hood and are a cheaper product. Cisco needs to be paralleling what the other vendors' devices are doing and giving what could be other markets the ability to use the product. For now, they've priced themselves out in some locations.

In terms of additional features, they need to look at the market and need to look at whether or not it includes more management features under the hood and more layers to functional troubleshooting which other vendor devices do, that would be a big improvement. But they need to be built into the product that you buy, and you shouldn't have to go and pay thousands of pounds for an additional management platform. There should be a level of management solution purchased through the standard WLAN, Cisco's WLAN solution. There isn't enough.

I would want people to be aware that Cisco Wireless WAN is a top-end product and solution. Their portfolio is superb. They have major experience and maturity and are very much in tune with their field. I work in warehousing facilities. Like most things, though, there are pros and cons. Cisco is the top end, commercially. It's going to be double the price, and I mean double the price, of everything else. Other products that I use, and I have cross-referenced the price point with many solutions for the requirements of our enterprise customers, are half the price.

They are a good product. Do they warrant the extra expense? I would have to say no, but they do have great maturity and their product portfolio is not just the access points but their other add-ons; their antennas, maturity and the information out there, which is invaluable. You pay for these from an engineering and consultative perspective. I need to research issues and other people's experiences. Cisco obviously has the world's best engineers, consultants who have that and very nicely post their experiences. That is invaluable. But unfortunately some markets, again I'm talking about Ireland here, sometimes can't afford that. And there are other products that can do the job just as well.

Commercially they are quite flawed but in terms of technology, you can't really beat Cisco, to be honest. Commercially I would rate them as a 2 but technically they would be an 8 or 9 out of ten. I'm not a fan of the Meraki product so I'm taking it out of the equation. I'm talking about Cisco WLCs, and what would be the solution. Technically it's an excellent product.

Unfortunately, their validity into other commercial markets is flawed. Majorly flawed. And they have too much competition, and Cisco being Cisco will just go "Well, that's fine, we didn't want to do that."  Then we would not use their products. So that's unfortunate. Maybe that's just a bit of pretension on their part.