Cisco ACI Reviews

The solution helps with business continuity.

Centralized management is valuable. PBR has been beneficial for network efficiency. It helps redirect the traffic to a node that is not necessarily a gateway.

The GUI is not easy to use. It must be made simple and convenient to use.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

I have not faced any issues with performance or stability.

The tool is scalable. It can adapt to the growing needs of the business.

We contact the support team when we face any issues.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment is centrally provisioned. The initial setup might take a couple of days. The deployment depends on the scale and customer requirements. We need one engineer for the deployment. The maintenance requires some skill development.

The product is not cheap. It is usually expensive. However, the solution’s local presence and technical support sometimes make customers prefer it.

We see tangible benefits of policy-driven automation in a modern scale environment where frequent changes are required. However, the features and benefits are almost negligible for a relatively smaller and static environment. The vendor's local presence and the support provided are the main reasons customers choose Cisco ACI. I will recommend the product to others. We must ensure that the use case is well-defined to get the benefit and ROI from the product. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco ACI for perimeter security and threat detection. 

The tool's initial deployment is complex and takes five hours to complete. 

I have been working with the solution for six to seven years. 

I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. My company has around 150 users for the solution. 

The deployment took less than one week to complete. 

A partner helped us with Cisco ACI's implementation. 

The tool is easy to handle once deployed. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use this solution to achieve a properly defined data center, so we basically use it for SDN. 

The basic functionality that is the most useful is creating a virtual network on a physical device. We use it for Software-Defined Networking where we have a centralized controller, and the rest of the switches are just for packing traffic. When you have a centralized controller, it's easy to manage.

The virtualization part of it is still all hardware-based. You have to buy the switches, and they have to be Cisco switches. You cannot roll the Software-Defined Network and network virtualization over onto any other product. For example, if I have a mix of Juniper and Cisco in my network, they are of the same physical fabric layer, but when I want to virtualize, it's quite difficult. You cannot do it. There are solutions like NSX that can sit pretty on any physical layer, but Cisco SDN will only work with its own devices, so that's a downside. They need to be able to achieve virtualization end-to-end with Cisco ACI.

I have been using this product for over four years.

I rate the solution a nine and a half out of ten for stability. 

You can scale the solution, but you cannot scale to other products. I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability. 

For backup you might want two people, but one person can handle all of the maintenance. Everything is managed centrally. This is a backend product, so not everyone knows they are using Cisco ACI. The organization I currently work for has over 10,000 employees, and practically everyone is involved in usage of the solution. 

If you have the right license and premium support, the tech support is a nine out of ten.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the initial setup as a nine. It was very easy. There are some external factors you need to connect, like cables. However, with the push of a button, in less than 15 minutes, you can roll out the basic Cisco configuration.

It's a graphic installation. You will see buttons: "Next," "Next," "Next." It's very easy to get up and running, just like setting up a phone. "Do you want to install this?" "Yes." "Do you want to enable this?" "Yes." "Do you want to configure this?" Unlike before where you had to configure Cisco switches one at a time, now you manage and configure it centrally, and you have a template to work with.

Sometimes we handle the deployment ourselves, but for the current deployment we are rolling out, we have a system integrator. We have Cisco itself involved. 

The good thing about Cisco is that you can trade in your old products to replace them with ACI. On a scale of one to ten, where one is inexpensive and ten is expensive, I would rate them a two. 

We considered VMware NSX, but some believe that VMware is vulnerable, so we stuck with Cisco. 

I would 100% recommend Cisco ACI to other users. I would rate this solution as a ten out of ten. 

Cisco ACI is used in the data center ecosystem. It's an eco-space solution. It's a DMB solution where you have the big hybrid data center you want to deploy on-premises, so the goal is to integrate all the virtual environments on feature environment servers with the data center.

What's most valuable in Cisco ACI is that it isn't like the legacy infrastructure where you have a lot of complexity in a TTR architecture.

What I like most about Cisco ACI is that you can control those devices from a single console, even if you have three hundred devices. You can manage the entire infrastructure from a single point of contact, so Cisco ACI is a time saver.

Another exclusive feature of Cisco ACI is its API interface that lets you enhance automation within the environment.

You can manage your entire data center from a single interface through Cisco ACI. If you want to upgrade three hundred devices in one click, you can do that, and within one hour, all three hundred devices will be upgraded.

I also like that Cisco keeps enhancing the product by adding different features, so there have been five major releases of Cisco ACI.

Another valuable feature of the solution is that it's more user-friendly than Aruba and Juniper.

An area for improvement in Cisco ACI is security, which Cisco needs to enhance in the solution. Though Cisco ACI uses a whitelist model, you must purchase an external product, such as a security firewall solution, to make whitelisting work, which the customer could find expensive.

For example, you're a customer who has Cisco ACI, and the solution doesn't have IP-based filtering, so as a customer, you've purchased Cisco ACI. However, you still need to buy another product for security, and some customers wouldn't like that. However, some customers prefer to go with Cisco ACI because of its scalability and flexibility versus other solutions such as Juniper and Aruba.

Technical support for Cisco ACI also needs improvement, particularly in product knowledge.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Cisco ACI is segment routing. For example, if you have an MPLS network, you can't directly integrate it with Cisco ACI at the moment. Suppose you have multiple data centers you want to connect to the MPLS private link through your service provider. In that case, you can't directly integrate that with Cisco ACI without an external device, which doesn't make sense to the customer. Cisco recently introduced the MPLS feature in Cisco ACI, but it's not up to the mark.

We've been involved with Cisco ACI since 2015, and have deployed the solution for more than thirty projects.

Cisco ACI used to be unstable, but after version 4.2, it's been very stable in the production environment.

Scalability-wise, Cisco ACI is a good solution because you can have more than five thousand servers in one ACI fabric. There's a lot of flexibility and scalability in Cisco ACI because you can even seamlessly integrate it with legacy infrastructure despite having a different data center.

Cisco support used to be good, but over time, many newbies were hired to provide technical support for Cisco ACI and other Cisco products, so the quality has decreased. The support provided before 2018 was good, but now, the Cisco technical support team has been struggling to give good support or provide expertise in some areas.

For example, if you raise an issue, you have to ask multiple engineers and make numerous escalations. Cisco ACI is a good product, but the support quality nowadays isn't up to the mark.

Cisco requires the customer to have some experience with the product before deployment, but novice technical support is brought in without sufficient training or without training the newbies for at least six months. The technical support team seems to just select cases and works on those without enough knowledge, so the customer experience is bad.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating Cisco support a three.

Some customers used Juniper and Aruba but went with Cisco ACI because the other two solutions weren't as user-friendly.

Anyone setting up Cisco ACI for the first time will see that it requires a lot of resources. Still, even if the initial setup is complicated, you can refer to the Cisco website regarding the steps you need to perform to complete the setup. Cisco explained the process well, and you can even take a workshop on it.

From a configuration point of view, I found Cisco ACI complex because it isn't easy to create the policy. Unless you have a good networking background, you won't be able to set up Cisco ACI easily.

For example, if your organization doesn't have experienced engineers, Cisco provides a two-day workshop for your engineers. Cisco also offers many free tools in the market to help you set up your account.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating the initial setup for Cisco ACI as four.

Pricing for Cisco ACI could be expensive if you're not a gold partner. If you're a gold partner, you'll get reasonable pricing, but to become a gold partner, you must cross several layers. For example, at least twenty engineers within your organization have to be certified, with each certification priced at £2,000 minimum, so this would make some companies think twice about the product. If you're going for Aruba and Juniper products, on the other hand, you can quickly get the partner status, and you can start selling the product.

As a gold partner, you can get up to seventy percent discount on Cisco ACI, for example, while an ordinary partner gets ten percent off.

Cisco ACI is expensive for both customers and partners, but I'm rating pricing for the product as four out of five because even if the price is costly, you get a lot of benefits from the product.

Cisco ACI isn't the best, price-wise, but it's still a good solution. If you're in a small organization, you may be unable to afford it. Cisco ACI is best for enterprises but not SMBs because Cisco ACI and its required resources are expensive.

I've evaluated VMware NSX, but it can't compete with Cisco ACI. Cisco ACI is a hardware-level product that can support terabytes and petabytes of data at the same time, which VMware NSX can't do because it's a virtual environment with limited throughput and scalability.

If you're planning to apply terabytes of traffic in VMware NSX, you'll find it hard, and the solution will eventually choke after some time.

Cisco ACI has the best scalability. Cisco also has categories where particular hardware will be recommended based on your requirement, for example, whether you have petabytes or terabytes of data.

My company is mainly involved with three products, Cisco ACI, Cisco FTD, and Cisco WebDialer.

My company is a reseller/integrator for Cisco ACI.

I'd rate Cisco ACI as nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is project-based. We deploy and configure upgraded ACIs, registered spines and leaves, and deliver projects to our customers. I'm a network consultant and we are gold partners of Cisco. 

The solution is valuable because it configures from a single point, from APs, and also all routers. Commands don't need to be configured on the spine and leaf side. You can control and manage the fabric from a single point. If you have serial numbers for your devices, they can all be registered with scripts. As a network engineer, you can configure and manage the fabric very easily. From the CLI side, it's really easy to configure from the GUI.

I faced issues when upgrading venues and registering devices. For example, in some cases, you have to reinstall the AP from scratch. We tried that and were then unable to register devices. From the network engineering perspective, it's hard to configure from the GUI. We tried to adapt but it was difficult. You have to add AP numbers for validations.

From an operational perspective, I think if you configure the fabric correctly, it's stable.

The solution is scalable; you can have multi-site scenarios. 

I have a good relationship with the technical support team, they are helpful. 

Because I have a system engineering background and I have MCSA and MCSE certification from Microsoft, the setup is very simple. The largest deployment I was involved in had 300 devices. 

This is an expensive solution, but it's high quality. I have experience with Huawei devices and Nokia. Huawei had many issues with bugs and I had hardware issues with Nokia. Cisco is the highest quality. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We have two clusters, the first one of which I upgraded last week to version 4.6, with the main cluster being, at the moment, 4.2. 

We are talking about simple things with which we use the solution, such as employing Cisco firewalls for protecting or managing some of the data. 

I actually managed a huge and very complicated corporate network, it being separated in many locations. We have i1 solutions and outstations which are all connected to our network. My primary focus nowadays is on our communication, on the head office network. 

We have a perimeter firewall when it comes to the hub, which is responsible for outbound and inbound traffic, in respect of the public services for outbound customers and outbound internet traffic for the internal RJ customers.

Our current H firewall is Fortinet, being the 3000 D series. 

There is a separation into five Vdoms, or virtual domains, which themselves are separated into a data center, firewall, VBN, publishing services, and proxy as a proxy firewall.

Routing mythology comes into play. At the moment, we have our AS number and BGP configuration with many service providers for the purpose of maintaining high availability and redundancy. So too, the Fortinet firewall is working in high availability mode.

When it comes to security, we recently switched to Fortinet, as we feel it to be more customizable for our use case in RJ than the solution. We moved because Cisco scored lower than Fortinet. 

While we have seen a return on our investment in certain cases, we have, of late, faced issues on the Call Manager, which we have. 

We have an on-premises, resistant license which we invested in. Out of nowhere, Cisco changed the licensing module to that of smart licensing, a perpetual license state, without offering any compensation to the customers. 

This made the license worthless and forced us to subscribe for smart licensing. This is the only way to continue receiving active support and upgrades from Cisco, not that anyone would say anything otherwise. 

Cisco is much more expensive than other vendors, especially when it comes to the licensing. For half the cost, I can obtain the same service with another product. 

It would be great if ACI would include the next generation firewall feature. 

I rate the solution as an eight out of ten, owing to the issue of the price and the complexity involved in its maintenance. 

I have been working with Cisco ACI for around five years. I have definitely worked with it in the past 12 months. 

The solution is definitely stable. 

The scalability is okay. 

Cisco technical support is great. 

In the past, I used Fortinet, Cisco ASA and Meraki. Currently, I use Cisco ASA and Fortinet. 

When it comes to security, we recently switched to Fortinet, as we feel it to be more customizable for our use case in RJ than the solution. We moved because Cisco scored lower than Fortinet.

When it comes to the installation, it is important to keep in mind that we are a corporate enterprise, which means that the complexity and customization are there. Many locations must be connected with each other. There is a need to apply many routing protocols, including EIGRB, static, and BGP. We have many protected areas in the backbone. 

In the middle are data center firewalls, which lie between the user and core switches. We also manage the wireless access. There is also Cisco Identity Service Engine, which manages access to the internet using authentication and posturing, based on the configured policies.

Much staff is needed for maintenance. This varies with the work payload. 

While we have seen a return on our investment in certain cases, we have, of late, faced issues on the Call Manager, which we have.

We have an on-premises, resistant license which we invested in. Out of nowhere, Cisco changed the licensing module to that of smart licensing, a perpetual license state, without offering any compensation to the the customers.

This made the license worthless and forced us to subscribe for smart licensing. This is the only way to continue receiving active support and upgrades from Cisco, not that anyone would say anything were I to stop. The licensing issue contributes to my decision to rate the solution as an eight out of ten. 

Cisco is much more expensive than other vendors, especially when it comes to the licensing. For half the cost, I can obtain the same service with another product.

We are talking about the cost of the renewal. 

Cisco solution is a perfect product and considered number one in the world in many parts.

Cisco ACI is a great product. It's nice to have in the company.

I am the network administrator in the enterprise company.

I rate Cisco ACI as an eight out of ten. 

In the last nine months, I have done two projects with Cisco ACI. Both of them were banking systems. I'm capable of selling, installing, and deploying Cisco ACI, so I know all the licenses and prices as well as how to compare the prices and establish a pre-sales team and also doing the deployment and supporting the ACA solutions. 

The most important aspect of Cisco ACI in my opinion is the ease of management. Other solutions, like traditional solutions and pricier solutions—or even fabric and PAT—you have to do many configurations on a box-to-box basis, With Cisco ACI, you go on the AP and do some "next, next finish" installer. Everything is done without having to know about the VXLAN, AVPN, MP-BGP, or ISI. In previous solutions, you had to know all these things and deploy all of them yourself, so you needed a deep knowledge of VRF and all the other BGP things. You would have to remember everything about the detail configuration, but now we just do some clicks and everything is there.

The other benefit to me is the white-listing solution that the ACI can handle. It's important to have a good knowledge of IPS and DDoS things. I always prefer to stop traffic mid-way instead of putting everything on the firewall and blocking it on the firewall. In my opinion, a firewall has very limited resources and it is possible to run out of resources easily with a simple attack, like HPing. But when you do white-listing, you just greenlight your needed traffic, not all the traffic. So this is a very big difference. And also of course, nowadays everyone is talking about the ACR tool Heat that allows customized configuration to style. These are the major things and some other things like very low latency and few hops. 

Before version 5, you could manage your firewall or load balancer from the AP. It was very basic and now they removed the whole features in the new version, so you cannot manage your load balance or firewall from your AP on L2, L4, and L7 services. They can improve this because it's a little bit hard to send traffic with PBR or EPB to the box. They're returning back. That's one area where they could improve.

I've mostly worked with Cisco solutions in the last 15 or 17 years. I do everything from deploying enterprise solutions and developing data centers to building cloud applications with Cisco ACI or data solutions at the center, like MPP, GPU, AVPN, and VXLANs. Security-wise, I started with ASA and IPS then upgraded to Five Power and Snort. I also have a lot of experience with Ice and Identity solutions as well as ESA and WSA.

I believe that Cisco ACI is highly scalable. Anytime that you want to add bandwidth, you just need to add a spine and anytime you need more ports, you just need to add that. And the very cool feature is the different typology that ACI can support now. Before that, it was a stretch, especially the typology. Nowadays, everyone is talking about the IPN and the multi-part.

For bigger operations with different data centers in different locations, you can deploy multi-site and it also offers some support remotely. I've never deployed it, but you can use a virtual peak that gives this and also enables a multi-tier. That's also very helpful with customers that don't want to spend a lot of money for the cable or transceivers. And the hardware is massive. I really love the hardware. The MTBF is huge. Everything is stable.

I was also in Malaysia for many years as a CTO at a company before COVID and was a Cisco partner. So I know how to create tickets. I've experienced how they respond and escalate tickets. I was the business owner and promised stability and availability to my customers. I asked and they opened a ticket for me, and I'd give it to my friend. I only needed to interact with Cisco techs very few times. But for licensing things and hosting, I use support all the time.

In most cases, you just plug in the cables and it even has the cable cave, a guard system, attached spine to spine. In my opinion, the initial part that involves creating the overlay is very easy compared to an MP-BGP or VPN solution. So in that case, it definitely takes hours, especially if the site that you are working with ACI is multi-tenant. If it's multi-tenant and you are not using ACI or an MPG EVP solution, then it's hard for you to take care of the road fillers. And a BGP road target must be very accurate, but here you don't deal with anything. This is also very great about ACI, which takes less networking. There's no port. Everything is tied to the object. So that's very easy. I believe that it is exactly the same environment and same thing that we face with the Cisco Blade system. You can create a foreign device and attach it to any server on the Blade and everything works fine. 

I would rate Cisco ACI nine out of 10. I'm always trying to push customers to use Cisco solutions. When I'm talking to my clients or anyone else who is thinking about using Cisco solutions, I always say 10 out of 10, but I believe that there is some space for improvement. 

Primarily, what we like is the ability to do micro-segmentation. We have many different application endpoints, and one of the key use cases for us was to be able to classify the application endpoints into arbitrary buckets of different silos. We need to be able to ensure that different endpoints will go into, let's say, a production silo, versus a development silo, versus a test silo. That was one of the use cases.

The function above and beyond that is that you get things like automation as part of the SDN framework. Therefore, you get the data center overlay that is built automatically and provisioned automatically from the automation capability that's built-in.

The solution has all of the baseline functionalities for any sort of SDN capability. 

The stability is quite good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

One of the areas that need work is feature flexibility. If you want to do things like routing policies it's not cookie-cutter, however, you want to customize routing policies. It becomes a little bit more constrained due to the feature set, the routing policy feature set within ACI, doesn't allow for you to get very customized when it comes to, let's say, failover type scenarios. However, that's just an artifact of the product maturity. It's going to take some time before the product becomes mature and they have the ability to have more customized features enabled. At version 4.0, these features were not yet available. We ended up having to basically export the routing functionality, the more advanced routing functions, outside of ACI and just put it into the routing infrastructure around it.

The initial setup is not intuitive.

Technical support needs to be more helpful. It's rare that you get a knowledgeable person.

It would be nice for them to provide visibility at a cheaper price point. Visibility is something that everybody wants to achieve with their workload. One of the benefits of SDN is supposedly the ability to collect all that telemetry and correlate it to something that is actionable and meaningful. That's a key requirement, however, the bar is so high in terms of costs. In our environment, we opted out of it as it's so expensive, however, it would be nice, as, if you don't have visibility, then how do you properly segment your workload? The minute you start segmenting, you kind of cut off workload communication. If your goal is micro-segmentation and putting your workload into arbitrary silos, and if you don't have the visibility, then it will be very difficult to achieve. Therefore, if you don't have visibility and you want micro-segmentation and you don't want to pay, then ACI is not your solution.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The solution is stable. We don't have issues with it crashing or freezing.

While supposedly it's scalable, the program is not. I don't have any data point that I can provide for scalability within ACI, as our environment is fairly small.

Technical support is hit or miss. Sometimes you can open a ticket and you will not have to escalate it three or four different times before you get somebody that is competent. I would say that's 85% of the time, however, the other 15% of the time you get lucky and you get somebody that knows what they're talking about.

I have some experience with VMware. I'd describe it as more intuitive and easier to configure, however, it's a different solution as it's software-based as opposed to ACI which is hardware-based. 

The solution's initial setup is straightforward. It is not difficult. One other area that I would say is a negative is the way that they have their setup. It's not intuitive. It's very complicated and if you want to provision an interface or something like that and get that interface, it requires a bunch of steps that are very counter-intuitive. It's not user-friendly.

The pricing could be a bit cheaper.

If I compare ACI to a VMware NSX-T type solution, I don't know if there's a differentiator there compared to NSX. I will say that NSX has much higher numbers of differentiation, as they have visibility into the workload at the hypervisor. Having used ACI, we were looking at solution sets that will give us specific capabilities beyond that. The value of NSX is it will give you the visibility component.

The version that I was working on is a 40 version, however, the company is at a 50 version at this point.

If you are looking for a solution that will give you the ability to have really good visibility into your workload, how your workload performs and functions, ACI doesn't give you that level of granularity as compared to, for instance, a solution like VMware NSX. For them to provide visibility, you're going to have to spend a lot of money on Tetration, which is another solution that they try to force on you. If visibility is one of your key requirements, then you might want to rethink your data center SDN solution for ACI.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.