Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

When you want to access cloud applications, or you want to have secure connectivity at a branch or hub location, it is quite useful. If you want to have a local breakout that is also possible. If you want to do a load balancing or even you can optimize the ISP to cost as well, you can do that. These are the benefits. We can even integrate security as well. This is an all-in-one box solution.

The product is very good. The information is accessible, and the integration is also easy.

It is stable.

The solution scales well.

It has a very good GUI.

The interface is straightforward. 

We find it very simple to deploy.

If a user needs documentation, it's readily available. 

I cannot speak to what areas need improvement. 

It's an expensive solution.

I've used the solution for one year. 

I find the solution to be stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is scalable. You can expand it as necessary.

It's a great option for enterprise-level organizations. 

We have multiple companies using the solution. They range from 500 to 1000 or so.

The response is pretty good. The solution they offer depends on a case-to-case basis, however, their turnaround time is pretty good.

The implementation process is pretty straightforward. 

The administration of the solution might need two or three people and they can work 24/7 to maintain it. Everything is remote. It's very easy to maintain. 

The pricing is quite high. There are other vendors that provide relatively low prices as compared to Cisco.

The cost depends on the number of devices and the application the customer is using. It is not a fixed price. It depends on the bundle. It varies on what application you wanted to use. 

There are other options available. Each OEM has its pros and cons. What is acceptable depends on the application use case. Cisco is positioned pretty well in the market as compared to its competitors.

I'm a consultant. We are Cisco resellers and partners.

For new users, a POC would be required so that they can understand whether it is fitting into their requirements or not. Implementation is not a big deal here. The deal is whether will serve its purpose or not.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is predominantly used for the zero-touch deployment, centralized dashboards, and live monitoring of tunnels and the links. It's also used for software image management. 

This solution is deployed on the cloud. 

One of the most valuable features is that they have multiple SD-WAN options: you have Meraki for simple management solutions, you have Viptela, and you have the option of having any type of WAN interfaces. Presently, you can also have a single combined solution for both WAN as well as for voice, so you can have a voice bundle as well. These are major unique points of this solution. 

This solution could be improved with a simpler implementation process and licensing model. 

As for additional features, maybe from a security perspective, it could have more features built into the SD-WAN itself. Rather than going and integrating Cisco with some other solutions, it could have one single SD-WAN solution with more advanced user security features. 

I have been working with this solution for 15-20 years. 

The stability and performance of Cisco SD-WAN are really good. It's a reliable solution. 

This solution is easy to scale. 

Cisco has multiple options: it has Meraki SD-WAN, which is a simplified version. It can be suitable for any retail or small- to medium-sized customers. For large customers, we have Viptela, which is for customers who need more control on their traffic. This solution is suitable for any type of customer. 

I have contacted technical support, but it wasn't specifically about SD-WAN. Cisco's tech support is wonderful—they have a good support team and they have a Customer Experience team as well, where they completely focus on the customer environment. There are dedicated resources available for large customers, and the Customer Experience team supports customers from the same cycle, as well as implementation, so in that way, it's really good. 

The implementation process is complex because there are multiple touchpoints and initial configurations that we need to do in order to get the setup up and running. For example, opening a lot of firewall ports. Overall, it has multiple components to manage—there are multiple controller components where we need to do the configurations to get it up and part of the architecture. 

Compared to a few other OEM solutions, it's a bit complicated because there are multiple controller elements. For example, vBond: I have to do some specific configuration to it and need to have a public IP for it to be part of the architecture. Then we have vManage and vSmart—three, four components are there which have to be managed, which is why we have to do specific configurations for those. All the control elements can talk to each other, which is why it's a bit time consuming. Even in the cloud, you have to make some changes to your existing setup so that it can be part of the SD-WAN architecture. 

We implement this solution for customers. We are a Global Gold partner of Cisco, so we consult, design, implement, and provide support to customers. 

We're an SSP as well, so we also offer maintenance services. We can provide standard maintenance services of supporting only the hardware, or if a customer asks for full managed services, we can deploy our engineers either on the customer side or remotely. We have a NOC facility, from which we can provide remote support. 

The pricing is fair, and it's on par with the market vendors. But based on the competition, Cisco could work on the pricing, go deep on discounts and provide more commercially viable solutions to customers. 

Some similar SD-WAN products from different vendors are Silver Peak, Steelhead Riverbed, Fortinet, VMware, and VeloCloud. Frankly, I've only been working with Cisco, but Silver Peak seems to be good too—I heard that they're doing well in the market. Otherwise, I know about these products and have seen how they work in webinars and trainings, but I haven't really worked on any products apart from Cisco. 

I rate Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten. 

To those considering implementation, my advice would be to understand your current infrastructure better. What exactly is being implemented, currently, and what use cases are you looking at? Having a thorough understanding of the existing infrastructure would really help to decide which option to go with: either the Meraki SD-WAN or Viptela. Have a thorough understanding of how your infrastructure currently is, connectivity, how the architecture is, which applications you use, and which use cases you're looking at. These things are helpful to know before choosing and implementing a Cisco solution. 

We use the solution to interconnect the branch network.

Cisco's performance is very good. The branches that we installed went on smoothly. We operate with no complaints. When it comes to management, it's simple. One PIN will allow us visibility into everything. Another thing is troubleshooting; we can see the issues quickly, dig down, and know exactly what the issue is.

Since the new one comes with the included IPSec tool, we don't have any security issues. It's already covered because all the data is fully encrypted between the branch and the office.

Cisco provides visibility. We can see the performance of the branch. Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue.

The user interface needs improvement. Users should be able to find various features faster without much tweaking.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN since 2019.

The product is stable. We don't have any downside so far.

Cisco is very stable, whether a branch network or the branches. We don't have any issues with them.

Seven members of the team interact with the solution.

We haven't encountered any issues with scalability when adding more branches or refining the solution.

We interact with them whenever we need access to the services.

Positive

I have used SilverPeek. It is made for the end user, not for technical engineers. It is easy to deploy and has better visibility of how the network is performing than Cisco.

I have used both solutions. I have evaluated some other solutions. Technically, all the SD-WAN solutions work the same, so it depends on the organization. Cost is a factor. Cisco is on the higher side but is stable. There have been a few upgrades.

The initial setup is straightforward. Initially, it may seem a bit complex, but overall it is straightforward.

Deployment typically takes from four to six months to complete. Additional time may be needed, especially if issues with procuring hub routers were not included in the original plan. Developing the actual network implementation plan may take around six months. However, the actual migration process after that is quick. It usually takes less than three months to migrate the network fully.

We work with three guys from the internal team and four from vendors.

From a technical perspective, we used to experience failures, especially when using two service providers where data wouldn't come up if one link went down. We no longer encounter that issue. We're able to utilize both links simultaneously. Thus, we haven't faced the necessity of quick upgrades as we did when relying on a single link. Having one link operational at any given time was less elastic.

Cisco is expensive.

We need to renew the licensing after three years whenever updates are required. These licenses are valid for three years. There's no longer a need for routine physical maintenance of the devices, which is typical for network devices.

We initially faced some challenges with sizing and acquiring the necessary devices. We encountered some issues with missing hub routers. However, once we overcame those obstacles, we involved Cisco professional services. They assisted us in creating the low-level design and supported the initial site deployments. After that, we were able to proceed independently. Our corporate professional services team guided us through the process and helped us develop the design.

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

I'm in Indonesia, where I use Cisco SD-WAN for DC and DRC to communicate with bank branches. One customer uses traditional simple routing via VGP or SPF to communicate to the head office data center or disaster recovery center. Still, I proposed using SDN technology, Cisco SD-WAN, to improve the application experience, have visibility to the provider link, and communicate directly from the branches to the application, such as Microsoft 365.

The customer also wants to access an application in the cloud from the branches, which requires a proxy, so the traffic goes to the data center and then to the cloud. You can directly connect all components to the cloud with Cisco SD-WAN, so I've implemented the product for the customer.

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is direct internet access, including onboard security. Customers don't want just a simple routing. Customers also want a firewall and IPS feature from Cisco SD-WAN.

One of the benefits of Cisco SD-WAN is cost reduction for customers. In Indonesia, it's costly to use NPLS and Metro for connection, so I always propose using an internet link to communicate between branches to the data center or disaster recovery center. Cisco SD-WAN can provide that service; the product also keeps traffic secure. Some customers may be afraid to use the internet link or connection to communicate between the branches and the data center because of some critical applications, so it may not be the best practice for some customers.

However, as my company is a partner of Cisco, I give the customer the PLC first before providing the solution, and I have customers happy about what I propose, in this case, Cisco SD-WAN.

If a customer wants access to cloud-based collaboration apps, such as WebEx, Google Meet, Zoom, and Teams, Cisco SD-WAN can integrate with Cisco Umbrella for cloud security.

With Cisco SD-WAN, customers can enjoy cost reduction. Customers also don't need to use a third-party DNS or process security solution because Cisco SD-WAN integrates with Cisco Umbrella. This is how beneficial Cisco SD-WAN is to an organization or business.

The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN include the DIA and its integration with Cisco Umbrella for DNS security.

One area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is reporting. The report needs to give more visibility to the customer. For example, the report should provide API information. I have a customer who wants to integrate the application via API and wants a summary of the utilization, branch links, and all internet connections on Cisco SD-WAN. The product has a monitoring menu, but it's very simple and needs to be more detailed, so that could be improved.

The security feature in Cisco SD-WAN also needs improvement, particularly if Cisco wants to challenge other brands, such as Fortinet. Fortinet has a firewall layer with an IPS feature, plus it can also run SD-WAN within the same box or device, while Cisco SD-WAN has a limited firewall and IPS feature, which could be improved.

In the next release, I also want to see more flexibility in the product when integrating with other infrastructure or monitoring solutions.

My experience with Cisco SD-WAN is around two to three years. Just last week, I implemented Cisco SD-WAN for one of my customers.

I found the stability of Cisco SD-WAN good enough.

Cisco SD-WAN has good scalability, so I'm giving its scalability an eight out of ten.

I'd rate the Cisco SD-WAN technical support team as seven out of ten because my company had difficulty getting the best engineer for a partner and a customer.

Neutral

Some customers need more detail about Cisco SD-WAN, so it takes a long discussion before the product is implemented, but for a customer that knows Cisco SD-WAN, at least how it works, signing up for it and implementing it takes three to six months. Sometimes, completing the deployment of Cisco SD-WAN takes one year if the customer requirement is complicated and challenging.

For simple routing, Cisco SD-WAN is easy to set up. It's an eight out of ten. If you're setting up the product with some security features, then the setup would be more complex, and that's a three out of ten for me.

The last time I deployed Cisco SD-WAN, mainly for three hundred to four hundred cases, the deployment took six months to one year.

I deployed the product for a bank, so the deployment and maintenance should not disrupt the production, which means it takes more time to migrate the current connection or the current infrastructure to Cisco SD-WAN because my team also needs to build the data center and the RC, and then migrate the traditional link with Cisco SD-WAN, and refresh the router at the branches. For three hundred to four hundred cases, that required many field engineers, about fifteen engineers. The bank also had project and implementation teams, but I have no idea how many people made up the teams.

I implemented Cisco SD-WAN with fifteen engineers, plus implementation and project teams from the bank.

The ROI from Cisco SD-WAN is good for me, so it's an eight out of ten.

The pricing for Cisco SD-WAN is more expensive than other brands or solutions, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks, so it's one out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN also doesn't have flexibility using bandwidth tiering licenses, while Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet have more flexibility with the licensing.

One customer is on a three-year subscription, while another chose a different type of subscription and tiering license. Customers only pay for the standard licensing fees.

I'm a pre-sales engineer, but only for Cisco products, such as Cisco DNA Center, Cisco SDI, Cisco SD-WAN, and other Cisco technologies.

I implemented the latest version of Cisco SD-WAN for a customer.

I deployed Cisco SD-WAN on the public cloud for customers, but I'm unsure if it runs on AWS, Google, or Azure cloud.

Cisco SD-WAN requires two types of maintenance, on-call and onsite. Three engineers handle onsite maintenance during office hours—two from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and one from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM. There's a second or backup engineer on standby that handles troubleshooting for the customer.

In each bank, Cisco SD-WAN has many users. Based on how many panels or bandwidth each bank uses, I'd say one bank already has two thousand to two thousand five hundred.

My rating for Cisco SD-WAN is eight out of ten. Despite needing some improvements, the product is already good for both customers and partners and is competitive enough.

My company is a gold partner of Cisco.

My client wants to use SD-WAN to reduce their line costs. By using SD-WAN, they aim to lower transport costs and better use internet traffic and bandwidth.

Clients use SD-WAN, which encapsulates the packet into a VPN tunnel. This allows them to be ready. In SD-WAN, the internet line is generally much cheaper than other lines. For example, they can use DIA to access internet traffic. With strong encryption, such as TLS or IPsec, they can securely send business traffic over the internet at a lower cost.

It depends on the customer’s requirements. In our area, Taiwan, we help users build SD-WAN. They are only using SD-WAN for transport. They want multitasking and QR code functions enabled.

Customers collaborate with ISPs and currently work with three ISPs, using options like LSM VPN and MPLS VPN to reduce line costs. They are considering moving from their current setup to an MPLS VPN and might also consider using a DIA line for internet access. However, due to government regulations and audits of internet access, they are cautious about using an internet line. They are still deciding which bank should be the first to implement this change.

If I want to improve the SD-WAN in the future, they might consider integrating it with technologies like SignalR and SRv6 into the SD-WAN control plane. This would enhance functionality, such as SRv6 video capabilities. They can simply use an SD-WAN solution based on SRv6.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

I rate the solution's stability as eight out of ten.

It is scalable. 8200 users are using this solution.

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

Our banking customers trust Cisco. I work for a company that serves these banking clients, and we provide Cisco's CX service to help them build their SD-WAN solution. They purchase the product and the associated service, and the Cisco team assists with the deployment, making the process straightforward. It takes a couple of hours to deploy completely.

The product is expensive.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution as five out of ten.

We have numerous use cases where it can optimize cost savings, particularly in terms of connectivity. By avoiding the need to backhaul traffic through expensive central locations, organizations can achieve significant cost reductions, avoiding unnecessary capital expenditures.

The most valuable features, application awareness, and failover resilience, stand out as key considerations for users.

As the majority of our applications now reside in the cloud, there's a growing need for solutions that revolve around cloud-centric policies. Currently, the convergence between on-premise and cloud policies lacks centralization. The platform that seamlessly facilitates the translation of on-premise policies into cloud-compatible equivalents would enhance efficiency, ensuring that policies are consistent and stable, regardless of the hosting environment, allowing for smoother service delivery. An area for improvement lies in enhancing the integration with the security functions of the SD-WAN.

I have been working with it for a year now.

The stability of the system is quite robust. Initially, there might be some minor challenges, particularly in the first couple of months, regarding certificate issues.

The scalability is highly efficient. When operating on-premises, scaling up involves a comprehensive analysis of the architecture and the provisioning of service resources. The scalability is directly linked to the provisioning of these resources. In terms of licensing, there is a notable benefit as Cisco now offers free licensing.

The technical support experience has been consistently positive. If there are any delays, they are minimal, and the overall efficiency is commendable. Notably, the support structure allows for direct engagement with the assigned support personnel without the need for multiple escalations. Opening a case typically connects me directly with the responsible assistant, avoiding the frustration of having the case passed through various levels. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Having worked with both Fortinet and Cisco, a notable distinction lies in the user experience. Cisco offers a more sophisticated and customizable experience, particularly evident in meetings. However, Fortinet excels in simplicity, making it a preferred choice for those who prioritize ease of use. In terms of customization, Cisco stands out, providing a more granular approach, while Fortinet is considered more straightforward and suitable for users who prefer a less intricate setup. The choice between them depends on the specific needs and preferences, with Fortinet being a good option for a straightforward approach and Cisco offering more advanced customization possibilities.

The initial setup involves a learning curve that can be steep, especially for local professionals who have direct access to private campuses like OneTrack. However, once you become familiar with the process and navigate through the online procedures, you'll find that it becomes more straightforward and kicks off smoothly.

As a new contractor, the deployment process is expected to take around six months, approximately half of which will be dedicated to virtualization and fine-tuning.

While the initial deployment costs are undoubtedly high, the significant monthly savings are notable, particularly in terms of operational efficiency and online-centric functions. The achievement is at least a thirty percent reduction in overall costs.

The initial cost is quite significant, but the investment is worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is secure segmented traffic. Cisco's micro-segmentation products are being used.

It is very simple to deploy. It's a point-and-click type of deployment, so it's fairly simple.

They have taken away our ability to do what we are good at, which is working on the CLI, the interface right on the router. 

They have limited the commands so much that troubleshooting is nearly impossible. 

They should work on their troubleshooting, in my opinion. 

They should do a better job of allowing more troubleshooting on local devices.

There are a few things on the roadmap. It is more about the specifics of how the product works than extra features. Some things don't work in the product that they are working on. It is quite good, in my opinion. It is very good.

We are currently in the process of fully deploying our Cisco SD-WAN, which was formerly known as Zetella but is now simply Cisco SD-WAN.

We started the deployment two years ago.

We are working with the latest version.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

Cisco SD-WAN is very scalable.

We have approximately 15 users.

We used Cisco support to assist us with the deployment, and they made it very simple for us.

If I had to do it, or if we had to do it ourselves, it would have been extremely difficult.

We attempted to use Cisco IPAM a few years ago. It was extremely difficult to install and even more difficult to maintain, to the point where we just scrapped it and deleted all the VMs because it was so difficult to install and maintain.

We have F5 in the environment, and I used to be an administrator for F5.

We used GTM as well as LTM. I don't actually maintain them in this role, but in a previous one, I installed and maintained LTM and GTM.

I have also used Riverbed's Suite product.

SteelHead produces acceleration products. In addition, they have a software suite that manages end-to-end traffic. You can see the flow from beginning to end.

I worked with SteelHead for five years. We removed this solution because we disliked it.

We haven't had it in a few years, but I don't recall the last version we had.

The initial setup was fairly complex, but we used a third party. 

It is expensive.

I don't have exact figures, because we have an enterprise agreement, we basically pay one lump sum for a variety of products.

If one is the cheapest, and five is the most expensive, I would rate the pricing a four out of five.

There are additional expenses, such as hardware.

I would strongly advise hiring third-party solutions for this. Definitely outsource the initial installation and let them guide you in the right direction. Do not try to reinvent the wheel.

If you find the right company, they will have done it a hundred times before and will be able to retrofit it to your specific request and needs.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for MPLS. We use it to have a connection to the telecom and we also have some radio networks that we use it for. We have two WAN ports - one is the MPLS one is the radio backbone.

The solution is excellent mainly for supporting our two WAN ports. We can dedicate which WAN is taking over and which one is available or not. It's great that we can also connect them to the internet. We can have a third line to connect to the internet providers for our internet solution. Everything is redundant and everything is working so far.

Overall, it's been working well for us.

The solution is great at aggregating the traffic and then sending it in one direction.

We have a good knowledge base in-house and good support in general and therefore we have continued to use it over the years.

The product can scale well.

The solution is very stable.

The solution basically does exactly what we need it to do. I can't recall finding a feature that was lacking for our purposes. We aren't actually using many of the features in general.

The solution could be a bit cheaper.

We've been using the solution for about three or four years at this point.

We've had absolutely no issues with the stability of the solution. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's been quite good overall.

This is deployed in our headquarters. We have them around the country, and we have some large offices and have the solution at all of them. There are likely 1,000 or more users on the solution all over the country.

The same generation and the same product is the easiest to scale and we have them mostly on some of our sites. We have the needed redundancy. That said, I would question the scalability if you are dealing with multiple types or other versions or other products. It needs to be of the same generation to take advantage of the path of least resistance.

We never test it with other solutions, however, with Cisco and other vendors is there is not recommended.

We mainly use the solution directly and as-is. There is a lot of redundancy, so if something goes wrong, there's something to catch it. We don't really use too many features for SD-WAN. So far, we don't need anything added on, and we really don't need too much support from customer service.

We buy support, however, in the latest versions, we really haven't needed assistance. IN the past, we did have some issues and support was there to help us get replacements, for example. They make getting replacements easy.

They usually reply to us within 15 minutes or so, if we do reach out. I'd describe them as pretty responsive. 

The level of difficulty depends on the experience of the engineer. If they don't have as much experience, it may be difficult. However, those that know the product well don't find the setup process complex.

Mainly they're using a command-line interface for years and they don't ask for anything like a GUI, which would be on Windows or Linux civil server. Everybody enjoys command-line. We exchanged some other Cisco products and some other routers recently, which were working for 15 years and are still working. We just asked for new ones with new features, like more traffic, more throughput, et cetera. 

I don't recall any maintenance really being needed. It works 24/7 without much need for assistance.

We did have some outside help, although nothing was from Cisco directly. We have our contact support company, and also we have in-house knowledge. It's done together, using both teams.

It would always be nice if the solution was a bit cheaper, however, the value is good. The cost of ownership is worth it as the solution itself is quite good and lasts years.

As a bigger company, we'd prefer to have a brand and a solution that's reliable as opposed to trying to find the cheapest option and have sleepless nights, afraid it might fail.

To calculate what we buy and how much it costs us for all the services, it's still quite a lot of money.

You have to pay between 3000 and 10,000 euros, or something in that range. The core switches Nexus cost me between 10,000 and 20,000 euros. However, they work, and that's why we use them.

We are just a customer and end-user.

We have 1921 and 4331 router versions. 

Not only does Cisco have a reputation, but we also have a good experience for a number of years, - five, 10, 15, 20 even years of use. Some of them still working even after all of this time.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it were more affordable, I might rate it higher.