Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is for streaming access to the personal devices of students and staff for guest wifi and connection. So we provide corporate access to devices. They use it for media streaming, for social networking, for learning solutions. Most people don't connect through land cable anymore - they all go for wireless options.

I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access. We see identity controls solutions so we make sure it's all part of the same management console. We have the same console and the same authentication, and we use a multi-high profile defendable wireless system, access ports, and wireless access IDs. So each access ID has different kinds of people, different kinds of networks, the VLAN. Cisco controllers are now the best in this field. We end segregation on the Wi-Fi side based on the access ID.

The solution is very expensive, and I think the price should be more competitive, like with Aruba, Meraki, and other products. The price model is very high but the manageability is simple. 

We have some glitches from time to time, but the support is fast and they support us very well. This doesn't happen very often, though.

The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky. It's licensing costs incurred, but technically the solution is very scalable. A total of 5,000 users are using the 3000 access points, and 2,600 users are using 800 access points. I am the architect and the rest of the users are basically university students, faculties, administration staff, and support staff who mainly use for media, social net access, corporate file access, academic system access, and learning solution access. And it used for radio-audio frequency wireless tools.

The support is good and I will rate them a seven out of ten.

As a typical Cisco solution there is a slight complexity to the setup, but because most of the engineers at Cisco are certified, it is easy for them. The integrators used a professional space on the vendor site for the deployment.

This is a very expensive solution but there are no additional costs.

We compared it to Aruba Wireless. Aruba has its own strength in the latest technology, their architects are very different, and they are more advanced. So I think Cisco is one step behind Aruba.

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability.

The cloud interoperability needs improvement.

This solution is scalable.

We have twenty thousand users.

The technical support for this solution is good, and the general Cisco tech support is also good.

They are able to help me with any problems.

The initial setup is simple

It took one week to deploy this solution and it takes two people to maintain this solution.

Our clients are large enterprise companies.

This solution is the best on the market. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is supplying Wi-Fi to public users.

We have been using this solution for 3D uploading and providing resources for users. Our goal is to offload traffic from mobile devices while people are at work.

We have been installing this solution in malls, the university, and other buildings. We have deployed this solution across the whole country.

This is the most stable product in the market.

The documentation is very good and it's available everywhere. If you use Google to search then you will get it all.

The integration is easy.

The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime. Currently, we have to calculate this on our own by using a performance tool and then customize the reports to display it. This information is a major concern for us because we need to know how much uptime is available to our customers.

This is a stable solution and we have not had any problems. We have not found any bugs.

The only problem that we have had is related to power failures, which has nothing to do with the product.

We have deployed this solution across the country, and anyone who is in the kingdom can use Wi-Fi for free for two hours. We have thousands of users.

We will be deploying more Cisco products because the integration is easy, and our core is already made up of Cisco.

We are satisfied with the technical support from Cisco.

They are not only taking care of the Wi-Fi. Cisco has also deployed the IP MPLS network.

Whenever we have a problem and we explain it to them, they try their best to solve it.

Previously, we were using the Cisco 5500 series and the 8500 series.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex because there is lots of documentation available and it is very good. Instead of being complex, it becomes easy for you.

We are also using a solution by Aruba. Some of the features are better with Cisco, whereas different features are better in Aruba.

We also evaluated Nokia and we found it more difficult to integrate.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I'm a user, administrator, and implementer of Wireless WAN. I work in a large company and we use the system throughout our campus sites. We mainly use version 5508 and for smaller sites, we use 2504. There are more recent products but I don't have experience with them. We currently have 50,000 people using the Cisco Wireless WAN and have no plans for further expansion.

Improvement to our organization would be in terms of IoT, I would say, because some buildings are fully covered by WiFi. We're talking about large buildings of 60 access points per building. Users have benefited from full coverage and of course, that includes cell phones which also connect to WiFi, and using the guest wireless, and the ICP. Reduction in mobile data costs has allowed for increased savings, thanks to our corporate WiFi.

Valuable features for me would be the friendly GUI. It's not a feature as such but it's the first thing I would point out because troubleshooting is very easy on it. I can literally point down to a single host, find roughly where he's located and examine the strength of his connectivity. Also, I find the mobile anchoring to be handy although compared to the newer solutions it's a little old. 

Improvement could be made in the planning - WiFi survey and planning, and WiFi key mapping - should both be included in high-end devices. You would expect them to be included in such a product. When we bought it, 5508 was a high-end device. Some aspects could be achieved automatically by the wireless controller. For example, if there is a single access point deployed in a densely populated area, there will be many users and all those users bring down the speed. I think an option where the range of the access points is determined by the signal strength of the end-users would be good. There should be a mechanism mitigating that because when a user with a low WiFi signal connects, he basically crashes the experience for everyone else. Some automation on their part would be good.

A neat feature that some of the other vendors have is that of informing, where I can tell the access point to narrow down its signal and focus it in a specific direction. That is very handy, for example, in long corridors where you don't want the access point to spread its signal everywhere but rather focus it to a narrow field of vision, so to speak. That's a feature I would like to see. Vendors like Aruba have things like tracking mobile devices. That would also be a handy feature because it allows you to pinpoint areas that have low WiFi coverage. Another feature would be a dynamically generated heat map. Let's say you can see on a heat map where the user has been and can follow his WiFi experience in terms of signal to noise ratio, signal strength and the like as well as interference by other machines detected in that path, how the access points see each other and the strength of signal they're producing. The only thing missing is the piece of software that could show you that graphically.

I would like to see a centralized management where I don't need to log on to every controller and then proceed from there. Also, a centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments and, of course, features such as user tracking so I can pinpoint the user, all the way down to the wireless control access point and switch that the access point is connected to. 

It's a very stable device when used properly by people who know how to configure it; a high-end quality device. Recently some of the access points have started to break down but they are over 10 years old, which is quite good.

The product is very good quality with high scalability in my view.

We currently have around 10 people in our maintenance team

Prior to Cisco, we used Palo Alto. The switch was made to Cisco because we wanted to standardize the network throughout the company. 

The setup is relatively straightforward. To configure the controllers with prep time and IP address, would take a couple of hours, give or take.

I wasn't involved in the decision-making process about alternative options before we went with the Wireless WAN.

We use dedicated wireless control for our campuses in a redundant topology, active/passive. We use both Flex connect and local, essentially switched networks. Our company uses physical machines, not cloud-based wireless controls.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

I use this solution because I work for a Cisco partner. We use a lot of Cisco products and it makes it easy for us to position this wireless solution for most of our clients because they already have a Cisco base. It is very easy to propose it as an alternative.

The solution has all the features we need, but it is very expensive.

The program is very stable.

It is scalable enough for most of our clients. We have many users and don't have issues or problems with scalability.

I don't have any complaints about the technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward.

If I were to give advice to others, I would say is this: I haven't had much experience with any other option. Or if you were asking me to recommend this solution over another one, I'll generally recommend the Cisco Wireless WAN, because that's the only one I know and have experience of. I would like to see better pricing. It would also be great if one of these wireless cards could support multiple service providers. On a scale from one to ten, I will rate this solution an eight. 

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for normal campus access, for voice roaming, regular setup, some employee networks, network using portals, and simple registrations.

We acquired the Cisco Identity Service Engine (ISE), and what I found the most valuable, is the integration between Cisco wireless and the ISE. It is very useful. 

The integration support technology should be improved. We have more sites to the technology itself and before we only had to connect the access points to a controller. Now we use most of the pieces of what the wireless as a concept can provide. So more integration and support will be great. 

The program is very stable.

I believe the solution is scalable and it is easy to add more users.

The technical support is really good.

We have been working on Cisco for many years now, so we just upgraded to Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup was really easy and straightforward.

Cisco is more expensive than other solutions.

The reason why we chose Cisco over another solution, is that Cisco is very strong here in the Aruba and Ruckus region. We have a vendor specifically in Saudi Arabia. What I like about this solution, is that it is always available and it's up to me to integrate, something called the DNA. I like the features that Cisco provides and it a solution that's easy to work on. I like the integration between Cisco and all the other Cisco products when it comes to network roaming, the DNA. So this is the integration that I'm looking forward to integrating, Cisco wireless with the DNA.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this an eight. The reason why I don't give it a ten is because Cisco is rather expensive. I would like to see it being more affordable.

We use this solution to provide wireless service in our hospitals.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is stable and the support is good.

The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports. The design of having only two physical ports is very bad.

This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product.

We have about ten thousand users in our environment.

We run different hospitals and on a daily basis and we have between eight and ten thousand clients.

Cisco is always number one in terms of technical support. There is no doubt that they are better than any other vendor.

I also have experience with solutions from Aruba and Avaya XE. We removed the Avaya units after their merger and are sticking with solutions from Cisco and Aruba.

I have a lot of experience with this solution, so I find the setup to be easy.

Between Cisco and Aruba, I would say that the features are similar. Each of them is better at different features.

Wireless solutions are not something that you need to change very often. We have older models installed and they are still working fine. Changing the entire environment involves a lot of money and a lot of effort.

My advice to anybody who is considering this type of solution is to first look at your ecosystem and then choose the product. Don't just choose one without looking at what other types of products, such as switches, you already have.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It's a good solution and it works very well. It has great integration with other Cisco products. It's good for the management team to only have one brand, one manufacturer of products. 

I like how the look and feel of the product are standardized to match other Cisco solutions. 

The pricing could be improved in future releases. It's quite expensive.

The stability of the product is good. I haven't heard anything bad from customers, who seem quite happy with it.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support for the solution is pretty good. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is quite expensive.

We use the on-premises deployment model. We're a Cisco partner.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.