Cisco ACI Reviews

We use this product at a French hospital. It has helped to improve the data center and we would like to use it to change how we work with clients. 

It has reduced the time it takes to resolve problems and to understand what colleagues want from inside the company.

It simplifies the utilization of the network. 

The first time we used it, it was not stable, but now, a few years later, it's better. Cisco continues to work on this. If anything is not stable, tech helps us. 

It has very good scalability. 

Their technical support is very good. We had a problem and Cisco gave us the best engineer to resolve the issue. 

The initial setup was very complex. It's a new solution and it was very difficult to have an approach for it. With a lot of the help from a Cisco network engineer we had a good approach and are able to easily resolve any problem. 

We used our own company to deploy the network. 

It's expensive but the product is very good. I have never found another partner like Cisco with a solution like this and with great support.

We also looked at Juniper but their solution isn't stable so we didn't go with them. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's a good product, and Cisco has a very good support team and very good network engineers. 

Of course I would recommend this product. We work with Cisco because they have many possibilities to work with very good support. 

Our primary use for Cisco ACI is to separate networks that don't want to talk to each other except for set work.

We are setting up a whole dev environment. Some of us are purchasing separate hardware. We can optimize our existing hardware by realizing ACI.

Cisco ACI can separate networks with a buoy interface. That is the most valuable feature.

I wish that if I had to open up an additional tab, I wouldn't have to log in every single time. That would be a feature I would like.

For the licensing model of the system, I still have not gotten another update after eight months. It's telling me I'm not licensed even though I'm told I am by my reseller.

The stability of the solution looks good. The only roadblock is that it is a big change to Cisco networking.

The scalability of the solution I cannot rate at this time since I just started.

I haven't had to work with Cisco's tech support too much yet. I've been using professional services.

The setup was in the middle. It was straightforward as to what we were doing. Since ACI is a new technology, we had to make sure we didn't start too far apart. I didn't want to break anything. That made it complex.

We used two integrator reseller consultants for the deployment: SHI and BTA. Our experience with them so far is good. Next time, I would want to work with all of the professional services more together.

I wanted an easier way to manage segmentation. Cisco offered this and this is also what the resellers were showing me as well. That this was going to be the future of the system. 

Cisco was the main vendor that I chose. We were also looking at Juniper and HP, but they did not have a similar situation. It was kind of a no-brainer.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco ACI at eight.

If you purchase Cisco ACI, make sure you understand exactly how you're going to put it in because it's not going to be easy to work with.

Instead of using traditional network structures we use ACI for network function mutualization. The mutualization of network devices and also for the control of automatization to manage the internet public.

The operation and maintenance costs have been reduced. It is also simple to deploy any deployment. Any configuration can be easily done. 

It is stable.

We've had to use their technical support and have found them to be helpful.

The first setup was difficult because it is a very different discipline than other traditional network deployments. The terminology is very different, so the first time can be difficult.

We implemented it ourselves. 

We have seen ROI. It has saved operation costs and also, the deployment phases are now very quick.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

If your objective is to deploy infrastructure quickly and in a fast manner this is the best solution.

We have it as a data center fabric, so it is layered to Fabric installation.

Having a lot of racks and switches with a single point of configuration which can be done with automation on one platform using one API. This makes everything work faster.

The centralized management is its most valuable feature.

With the first setup, it was complex because of the terminology. We were clicking around because we did understand the API console. The hardest part was to make something scalable and easy to use in the future without having any prior knowledge. It was hard, which is why we used consultants with the setup to provide us advice.

We did have problem with APIC, but we didn't even notice it. We changed it with no impact.

We are waiting to see what happens with the cloud. We want to see if it will scale better. Also, we want to see how they will be moving to the cloud. At this time, we don't know.

It is quite stable. We have not had any problems. I believe it is because of the way it is built. 

So far, the scalability has been good. It has been better than other products.

The technical support has been okay for what we are doing. We haven't done anything very tricky. However, what we are doing has been out of the ordinary scope of networking. 

We have everything we need in terms of support. The technical support has been helpful.

We previously had two different solutions. We switched because wanted a more modern, scalable solution with a bigger infrastructure, so we went with Cisco ACI.

The first setup was complex, but the second one was easy.

The setup was done by a few consultants and us. The consultants were helpful because when we started, we had no idea about Cisco ACI. The experts helped by saying, "Do this and that."

A big company can automate it themselves or spend a lot of money and buy it.

We also consider Juniper, but we decided on Cisco because Juniper's system scalability and stability are not good.

We use it for virtual automation and virtual networking in our data center. It is for virtualized networks instead of physical elements.

It has centralized our projects.

It is easy to use because you have all the information coming from the same technology.

The ACI user interface is complex and Cisco should improve it.

We had to take time to learn the product, as it is quite complicated to understand.

The product is stable. We use it all day.

We have technical support with Cisco, and it is great. They are easy to reach. We are big client. They generally solve our issues.

We were previously using Cisco NX-OS products, which are physical, but we needed to install virtual. 

We have large data centers which need to be integrated with vRealize.

At beginning, it was not easy to set up, because it is a complex project. However, the initial setup was easy overall.

We use it for data center management and multitenancy.

We are service providers. It has allowed us to serve some of our outsourced customers better than the previous generation of products.

The automation is its most valuable feature.

The product needs to be simpler. There is too much complexity in ACI. 80 percent of its features are of no use to us. We could do with a simplified version.

I would like to see some of the roadmap products remotely working to satisfaction where we could actually deploy them for our customers.

The stability is generally very good, but not perfect, because it has let us down before.

Scalability has mostly been perfectly adequate for what we have needed so far. We have not hit too many limits.

The technical support has been excellent. We engaged with Cisco Professional Services to help us get set up and their support has been outstanding. We have had our questions answered. New software and code has been provided when needed.

The desire to automate was a big driver for us to use this solution.

The initial setup was trivially simple and easy. It builds itself because it is automation. You don't have to do too much.

We used Cisco Professional Services for the deployment. They were outstanding, but very expensive.

It is an outstanding product.

Our primary use case is for automating our data center. We are moving from a classic legacy data center to new data center, with Cisco UCS. The first implementation will have multiple implementations, then we will move ahead with a Multi-site implementation next year. 

We are still in the development phase.

It improves security and automation. It is stable and provides flexibility with different workloads. It is also more powerful from a security point of view.

The areas for improvement are automation and user-friendliness.

If I lose the connection from one side to the core, I can't use the other side to go to the core. I hope in the future, this will be fixed.

It is very stable.

I would rate the technical support as a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is complex, because we had to work with Cisco Professional Services to find the correct solution for our implementation.

We directly used Cisco Professional Services for our implementation. They are very professional.

We investigated different products and found that ACI can be used with different workloads (e.g., legacy permits) or with different systems, like Microsoft Hyper-V. Cisco ACI is more flexible as a product.

Pay attention to the implementation and interconnections between the data centers with this product.