Cisco Catalyst Center Reviews

I am working with some product lines from Cisco, focusing on routing platforms, Catalyst, and firewalls. I also work with access points and wireless controllers. I can work with any product from Cisco's networking lines. With the Catalyst, I work in enterprise environments and educational institutions like universities and colleges.

I can work with the typical configuration involving VLANs and authentication with RADIUS. I can utilize the most popular features in Catalyst. Prox platform is a universal platform. 

There is a lot of documentation for the platform, which is an advantage. The best feature is its availability, easy deployment, and the good support for the solution.

Regarding the cons of Catalyst, it is a little more expensive. With other vendors, you have one license for all features. In the case of Catalyst, there are many licensing options.

I have twenty years of experience with Cisco.

It is a very stable solution.

Support is very well rated. I would rate it eight out of ten. The software platform is very easy to use.

Positive

The setup is very easy. It can be done in one day, and it is very straightforward.

The deployment is very straightforward. One person handles it. I am the deployer and the consultant, so implementing the solution is my job.

The voice capabilities are used for the solution, however, I do not know how to quantify this system. The best feature is its availability, easy deployment, and good support for the solution.

The setup can be somewhat expensive.

The overall product rating is nine out of ten. 

I am more into sales, and my role was to sell Cisco Catalyst Center switches to end customers. Our clients were from different verticals that needed high-speed connectivity for large enterprise networks, and we used to position Cisco Catalyst Center switches for them.

Cisco Catalyst Center was flexible in terms of scalability, offering advanced security features and reliable performance. We used to position it during our sales cycle due to its scalability, advanced security features, and reliability. Additionally, it provided centralized management and ease of management through Cisco DNA center, aiding in the overall monitoring and configuration, which was beneficial for managing the entire network environment.

Some features in terms of security should be there, especially in threat detection. Cisco Catalyst Center lacked intelligence in this area and required reliance on third-party appliances like firewalls or threat protection devices. There should be some improvements in security features to enhance threat detection capabilities.

I worked with Cisco Catalyst Center for almost four to five years.

Cisco Catalyst Center is scalable and quite flexible, allowing for specific model choices like the 9,000 or 2,000 series based on the clients' performance requirements and bottlenecks.

I contacted Cisco's support team almost four to five years ago, and their support was excellent.

Positive

We assessed customers’ environments, identified performance demands and pain points, and positioned the appropriate Cisco Catalyst Center model to fit, potentially leading to performance improvements and better return on investment.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Center nine out of ten.

On-premises

The solution primarily focuses on visibility into Cisco products and day zero, day one, and day two operations. It enables plug-and-play features, device onboarding, hierarchy definition, and telemetry data collection, offering a comprehensive 360-degree view. The core of the solution is basic automation and visibility assurance.

Most customers have heterogeneous environments. The main drawback of Cisco Catalyst Center is that it can only manage and monitor Cisco devices with a DNA license, specifically the Catalyst 9000 series. Customers often have mixed vendor environments, and platforms like Xtream offer vendor-agnostic solutions. While Cisco's DNA Center does have third-party SDKs that allow monitoring of non-Cisco devices, this approach isn't always practical. Additionally, Kumar mentioned the importance of segmentation, transitioning to SDA, and moving away from traditional VLANs and ACLs towards identity-based segmentation integrated with ISE. Therefore, it's more suitable for customers who primarily use Cisco solutions rather than those with diverse vendor environments.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center for four to five years.

Cisco performs well in the network space, especially in areas like switching, DNA Center, and wireless, where it is known for its stability. However, there are some issues with security, and the stability isn't as strong. Despite this, the number of PAC cases raised for Catalyst Center is generally low.

For scalability, Cisco DNA Center offers different form factors—small, large, and extra-large. The scalability depends on factors like the maximum number of APIs and nodes the hardware can support. You need to choose the appropriate form factor based on your requirements for the next two to three years to ensure it can handle your needs. The available options start from a capacity of 256 devices, as the smaller 44-device option is no longer available.

The device must be accessed regularly to monitor the network and generate reports from the DNA Center, which provides a wealth of data. Daily tasks like changing configurations or deploying templates won’t be frequent, as these are typically part of the initial setup. However, the operations or NOC team will monitor and manage the DNA Center daily to ensure smooth network operations.

Neutral

I have used Juniper and HP. Arista is one of the things that we generally see in data centers. 

At its core, switching is primarily about L2 and L3 functions, with little variation beyond the basics of port speed and supported features. The real difference now lies in the platforms' management, monitoring, and data capabilities. Every OEM, like Juniper with Marvis, Arista with CloudVision, Cisco with Catalyst Center, and Aruba with Aruba Central, emphasizes their platform more than hardware products. These platforms are where the value is added, offering advanced functionalities like automation, analytics, and enhanced network visibility, differentiating them from one another.

If you're moving toward a software-defined network in a public environment, it's important to understand how LISP works, how to create the fabric, and how to manage segmentation. While these aspects can be complex, basic automation and assurance are relatively straightforward.

If all the prerequisites are met, such as IP configuration and port opening, integrating a device into the network should only take one or two hours. This assumes everything is properly set up where the device is deployed.

These platforms are valuable because they reduce the need for extensive technical resources to manage the network. With such platforms in place, the cost of resources can be lowered, and adding or configuring new elements in the IT landscape becomes much easier. This streamlined approach simplifies network management and allows for more efficient operations.

It is the most expensive when you compare it with other OEMs.

If you look at the data, the data sheet mentions what kind of data the DNA Center is capturing and sending to the cloud. This data collection is essential for certain functionalities, like vulnerability assessments and local telemetry. I don't see any issues regarding data security, but it largely depends on the network's security and where the Cisco DNA Center is deployed.

Following the microservices architecture, you need three nodes to establish a Cisco DNA Center. This requirement is necessary if you want to form a fully functional Center. However, customer awareness of the DNA Center is still quite limited. Many customers hesitate to adopt a controller-based approach or commit to a single OEM. When considering Cisco, customers must have an infrastructure ready for the DNA Center, which often requires purchasing expensive software subscriptions like the DNA Advantage or Essentials licenses.

Additionally, Cisco has introduced an AWS form factor for DNA Center, allowing it to run as an AWS instance. However, this option has limitations and doesn’t offer the full functionality of the on-premise deployment. Customers increasingly seek diverse solutions and are less inclined toward adopting DNA Center, similar to how they were hesitant with SDN controllers five years ago. The market dynamics are changing, and customer interest in DNA Center is not as strong as it once was. It's very tough to push the Catalyst Center.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use Cisco Catalyst Center to monitor Cisco infrastructure.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Catalyst Center is automation. It helps me monitor Cisco infrastructure effectively. The automation capabilities streamline many of our network management tasks, making operations more efficient.

Cisco Catalyst Center should be a bit more flexible with brownfield deployments.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center for two years.

I would rate the stability of Cisco Catalyst Center as eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Cisco Catalyst Center as eight out of ten.

I am satisfied with the technical support from Cisco. I would rate their technical support, including response time and quality, as eight out of ten.

Positive

Previously, I worked with NetAlly AirCheck G2, but I am now using NetAlly G3.

The initial setup of Cisco Catalyst Center is complex.

We required a third-party company for the deployment.

Cisco is a high-priced solution.

The main competitor on the market is SolarWinds. However, I prefer working with Cisco due to its integrated hardware and software, which offers better integration.

I rate the overall solution as eight out of ten.

On-premises

I use Cisco Catalyst Center in Uruguay where there are no large enterprises. I have worked in networks with about three hundred to four hundred devices. I have experience in the government and financial sectors.

I find Cisco Catalyst Center to be a great solution because their hardware is strong, and the platform is reliable. The availability of features that can be implemented, such as VLANs, adds to its versatility. I appreciate the confidence and reliability in Cisco products. Their threat intelligence platform is excellent, including Talos Intelligence, which provides a good database and strong threat insights.

Some documentation or use cases are not clear enough. However, when I contact their second-level support or product teams, they respond well. While documentation could be improved, it is not very relevant to me.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center for several years.

I do not encounter difficulties when implementing Cisco Catalyst Center solutions.

I find Cisco Catalyst Center to be very reliable and it does not have major problems in security.

Cisco provides good support. Sometimes they escalate problems to second or third-level teams, solving issues in a timely manner, which not all brands or teams do.

Neutral

I do not find the initial setup of Cisco Catalyst Center to be difficult. The implementation process is fairly straightforward.

I find Cisco Catalyst Center is priced normally compared to other solutions. The cost is reflective of their good hardware and the level of service provided. While there might be cheaper hardware, Cisco's strength justifies the cost.

I have experience with Cisco Umbrella and other Cisco solutions.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Catalyst Center as an eight or nine due to its good hardware, useful features, and strong security. My overall product rating is 8.

I work primarily for Catalyst, mainly in data center networks.

Catalyst provides a reliable and mature network solution, which has stabilized all features and improved productivity.

The architecture and the way Cisco designs it, VXLAN and Cisco Express Forwarding are some of the features I like.

Catalyst is a very mature product. The only limitation is when integrating with other products due to Cisco's proprietary protocols.

I have been working with Cisco for over 20 years.

About thirteen to fourteen years back, there were some glitches. Now, the product is very stable with no significant issues.

Catalyst is scalable. The spanning tree architecture might have some limitations. The architecture remains an industry standard.

Cisco provides the best support in the industry.

Positive

I have used other similar solutions, yet not in detail.

Installation depends on the switch size. While one person can configure it easily, a chassis-based solution might require more people for installation.

Installation sometimes requires multiple people, especially for chassis-based solutions, but configuration can be done by one person.

Cisco is average in pricing, neither too costly nor too cheap. It's like the iPhone of the networking industry.

I have been aware of similar solutions and have not used them in depth.

Catalyst is a product that has matured significantly over time, with no glaring features left to add.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

My use case is to manage reporting, monitoring, and provisioning for both wireless and wired devices.

We are using Wireless Assurance, which has been quite useful, and we plan to start using the Cisco Spaces feature.

The integration of Cisco Catalyst Center is fine, but the deployment process can be pretty complex, involving some irrelevant or uncertain information during setup. We have a cluster of three, and while adding devices to the cluster, we encountered a few hiccups and uncertainties about what might happen next. With its Maglev OS used for initial configuration, Maglev is powerful, but there's room for improvement to make the process easier.

On the positive side, the amount of detail it provides is impressive. It gives extensive insights into clients, users, traffic, applications, and more. While the information it offers is valuable, there's room to make the overall experience more seamless.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center as a partner for four to five months.

It works for companies of all sizes as long as the need exists. It's a license-based solution, so it depends on the business requirements. Even a small company might need extensive reporting, troubleshooting, and automation. So, it's suitable for medium enterprises and possibly some small companies. It gives significant control over the environment for large organizations.

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

We have a cluster of three Generation 2 DNA Center appliances.

It offers value for money, but it is heavily priced.

The integration capabilities are pretty much straightforward. We need to follow a procedure the first time.

We enabled an AI feature that provided much more detailed, granular information about users and clients. It gave us details like the operating system, device type, vendor, and the OUI of the MAC address, providing deep insights into the clients and users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises