Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly. This feature enhances operational efficiency by centralizing control plans and policy management, making applying SD-WAN features across numerous devices easier. The central policy enforcement feature is also highly beneficial, particularly regarding network security. With this feature, security policies can be defined centrally, streamlining security management across the network. Another valuable aspect is the improved link utilization, which previously took a lot of work to implement. It enables granular control over link management, quality of service, and application prioritization, enhancing overall network performance. Furthermore, integrating APIs facilitates automation and simplifies routing, a previously unattainable capability.

Cisco should develop a clear roadmap, ensuring seamless integration between Meraki and Viptela. Simplifying the definition and implementation could add significant value, as it can be complex due to multiple product integrations and customization requirements.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for two to three years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We work mostly with enterprise companies such as banking institutes. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

Cisco's technical support services are always good. They are always present whenever we need their assistance in resolving issues.

Positive

The initial setup is more complex than other vendors but relatively easy. I'd rate the process around seven out of ten. Regarding deployment, it's mostly on-premises. Once the initial configuration is set up, deployment takes little time. Once policies are configured, onboarding is efficient. Even for hundreds of branches, deployment can be done in weeks.

The product is not too expensive. It is competitive considering security features. The licensing cost is typically based on bandwidth subscription. For example, you must purchase a corresponding subscription if you have a bandwidth range of one to five Mbps. While this may seem insignificant for smaller bandwidth needs, it can add up for organizations with multiple links. It's worth noting that some other vendors, like Huawei and Fortinet, don't charge for bandwidth subscriptions in their SD-WAN solutions.

SD-WAN has significantly improved our customers' network management. It brings a lot of efficiency, particularly through automation. Instead of manually configuring each device, we can utilize a centralized management platform to push configurations and manage devices. It enhances operational efficiency and provides better visibility into network operations. Additionally, it facilitates the deployment of advanced features, such as gigabit capabilities, which might otherwise be challenging to implement.

The scalability and flexibility of Cisco SD-WAN have brought significant benefits to our clients. From a business perspective, it has led to better management and improved quality of service for applications. Optimizing application performance and enabling multiple applications hosting on servers with enhanced quality has played a crucial role in enhancing service levels.

The traffic management capabilities play a crucial role in optimizing SD-WAN performance. With different types of circuits like MPLS, Internet, 4G, and 5G, organizations prioritize critical applications for reliable service. It optimizes application traffic across the most suitable circuits. It offers traffic optimization and error correction to enhance throughput and ensure efficient traffic flow even in link quality issues.

The integration into infrastructure has impacted IT overhead and costs. While there is an additional pricing model for the subscriptions, its efficiency must also be considered as it adds significant value. It is not a hardware-agnostic platform requiring integration with Cisco hardware. However, since many of our customers already use Cisco products, the migration from non-SD-WAN to SD-WAN was relatively seamless, with minimal problems.

Depending on their needs, if routing capabilities are prioritized, Cisco and Huawei offer extensive routing features, making them strong contenders among SD-WAN vendors. However, if security is a top concern, Palo Alto or Fortinet are worth considering. Cisco's solution is particularly robust in routing, boasting a significant market share.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

We replaced all our legacy routers with Cisco SD-WAN. The number one use case is more to do with network management, better policy integration, and keeping the policies consistent across all our locations. That was one of the major areas where we thought SD-WAN has reduced a lot of burdens so that the engineer can focus on actual issues. 

We were doing a lot of policy-based routing earlier for our hub and spoke topology. With SD-WAN, the hub and spoke, of course, stays. However, manageability, scalability, and ROI are the three major factors with which it has helped a lot. 

We could eliminate most of our expensive MPLS links, move them, do the local internet breakouts, and integrate with the NGFW firewalls. These were an added benefit to us. It was a tectonic shift. Right now, we are not spending as much on resources or engineers to keep the lights on.

The integration, scalability, and ROI that Cisco SD-WAN provided are the main features that helped the organization advance further.

The solution has helped us to lower expenses.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

It is very stable. 

We can scale the solution. 

SD-WAN itself is vendor locked in. At one point, Cisco should make it open so that if we have multiple mergers and acquisitions happening, it's easier to consolidate. Right now, if we are running Cisco, and the other organization in an acquisition scenario is deploying some other competitive vendor, the communication, the manageability of running two separate ESD instances, becomes a burden that falls back on us, especially the network administrators. It's better to consolidate and come up with better products, especially targeting AWS as their underlying transport.

Traditionally, what Cisco has done, is they have always considered internet gateways or links and the MPLS links as their transport technology. In some devices, they have also used ELTs. Now, since we have 5G in place, they could look at private 5G ELTs, and they could expand that line, again, particularly in the ESD space since AWS has recently released their own SD instance where they are allowing their customers to backhaul.

With SD-WAN being a very custom solution and a vendor-specific solution,  we would end up having multiple software-defined instances where one is running in Cisco, and one you are running with AWS, and then again tomorrow, another SaaS-based player or a similar player will come up with something else. 

For example, when two organizations merge with each other, there is likely a scenario where organization X is running (for example) Juniper, and the other organization is running Cisco. The administrators would end up having to separate ESD controllers. You do not have a single ESD controller that is open in nature, where you can manage Cisco and Juniper devices. That is a concern. So if the controllers were made open, with compatibility between the vendors, that would be a very good thing for the industry overall.

As a market leader, they are better positioned to go ahead and make that kind of change. If you look at the history of Cisco, before MPLS came into the game, it was Cisco, Juniper, and a few other vendors who came together and created a very good protocol. 

We need them to start focusing on the SD-WAN compatibility with other environments and not being so vendor locked with Cisco environments.

They should get better controllers that can especially talk with AWS and Azure. Right now, I have taken a subscription with AWS Project Gateway. I will have to place a Cisco CSR image if I want to make it a true SD-WAN solution. Instead of using a separate image, if they could make the Cisco's controller open or a transit gateway solution, that would be ideal. 

I've used the solution since 2018. We've used it for around four years. 

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

We haven't seen major issues. 

The product is pretty scalable. 

In terms of Cisco SD-WAN, we have close to 200, and that's a pretty big number. We have about 12 engineers around the clock using the solution. 

For the SD-WAN portion, we are getting good support. We have no major concerns about the level of attention we get.

Positive

I did do a POC with VMware, and it was not great. We struggled with configurations. I've also done a POC with Aryaka and have used Fortinet and Palo Alto, as well as Viptela. 

The difference between Cisco and other options is that you get a good number of engineers. Second, the amount of time required to troubleshoot the protocol level is lower. I'm using the word protocol on the operating system that gets loaded and comes with the software. They don't even have a proper support line, and the support will not be aware of the production issues. The other competitors are three years away compared to where Cisco is today.

The solution is very straightforward and simple.

We did engage with Cisco during the initial POC and rollout. Later, with adequate materials and training materials, engineers, and resource availability, we never ran into challenges. 

When I speak with my other colleagues in other organizations where they did use Fortinet, they did use other products, they ended up spending a lot of labor hours and only figuring out that near the end after they struggle with configuration.

I'd rate the setup a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation.

From a maintenance perspective, it's not that frequent. Every quarter, the manufacturer releases its own patches and updates, which we are following through its life cycle. That's very normal. 

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did not need to worry about getting help from outside vendors. 

We have seen a positive ROI and a reduction in costs.

The price varies. They have different products, including routers, some of which are now being removed or deprecated. The new platforms with the CSR 8,000 series have competitive pricing, and the kind of features they're providing justifies the cost - especially when you look at the number of features and support that comes with it.

I'd rate the pricing at a four out of five in terms of its competitiveness.

We are a customer of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

Cisco SD-WAN is primarily used in the banking industry in Pakistan for bandwidth development and application control.

Cisco SD-WAN's best features are the development of network links, application control, and bandwidth monitoring.

Cisco SD-WAN's clustering mechanism needs to be improved. If there are more than five milliseconds of latency time between installations of the VM manager, the cluster automatically breaks down.

I've been using Cisco SD-WAN for a year.

Cisco SD-WAN is stable.

Cisco SD-WAN is very easy to scale.

Cisco's technical support is very good, and they're one of the few companies that provide local support. If we face any problem, they respond to and resolve it within three to four hours at most.

Positive

I previously used Forcepoint, but they have no local support, which means we had to wait much longer to get resolutions to our issues. Cisco's knowledge base was also better.

The initial setup wasn't easy, and I would rate the setup experience as two out of five.

In the first phase, our partner implemented the solution, but afterward, we managed it by ourselves.

For 600 links, the license for Cisco SD-WAN costs us US$250k a year. In Pakistan, we have the option to get this solution at a more discounted price.

I would give Cisco SD-WAN a rating of seven out of ten.

The load sharing in the fabric and the cloud connectivity are both pretty flexible. The solution offers us the correct field mechanisms.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It can scale according to our needs. 

While the environment itself is not a bottleneck, the dependencies and the provisioning and the different parties involved altogether form, complexity and introduce limitations.

The initial setup is really complex.

We've been using the solution for two years. 

The stability is really great. It's definitely reduced downtime. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

For us, the solution scales well. We are far away from its limits. That said, we are not, let's say, a very big company.

Technical support has been good. They are helpful and responsive. 

We did not previously use a different solution. We had a fairly traditional wide area network without any sophisticated connection options.

The initial setup is not straightforward or simple. It's very complex. 

I'm not sure how many staff members are needed for deployment and maintenance. 

We did outsource the initial setup.

I'm on the technical side. I have no idea what the price is and don't deal directly with licensing. I do know that this is an all-in deal, meaning there aren't extra fees associated with the cost. 

We're basically an end-user interacting with Cisco on this, however, the final responsibility is with our ISP.

SD is an enterprise tool and you should not use an ISP for implementation. Better to use an NSP or do it yourself. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We primarily work with branches of small businesses and enterprise-level organizations.

The solution works well in big environments. It's excellent for large enterprises with a high number of users.

The deployment is quite simple and straightforward.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has always been quite helpful. We are very happy with their level of service.

It's possible to scale the solution.

We've looked into the existing documentation and found it to be okay. It varies, however, they do offer documentation for their products.

Overall, I really like the whole technology.

For the most part, we don't really see any features that are lacking.

The actual configuration could use some work. The solution could add in some more automation elements to help with the process.

The solution needs to be more flexible around legacy devices.

The security should be improved on the solution. They need to make everything more secure.

Scalability could be easier to achieve if a company needs to expand.

The product could improve its pricing. They are very expensive.

I've been using the solution for six years at this point. It's been a while. We've been working with the solution over the last 12 months as well.

The solution is very, very reliable. It's quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good overall.

The scalability is okay. We largely deal with medium and large enterprises in Mexico. There are typically government or educational organizations.

We have been very, very happy with Cisco's technical support. They are extremely helpful and responsive. 

The implementation is pretty straightforward. Now it is easy as they've updated the process a bit. We can use icon managers, for example, and engineer basic modes of deployment.

The deployment process takes about three or four months. However, it depends on the number of sites or services. They vary and some types of data are very different.

The maintenance requirements vary. It depends on the project's maintenance. When the implementation is a government or education client our engineers and Cisco engineers work together. There are more business enterprise requirements. Typically you need two or three people, more or less, and it depends on the project.

The pricing is quite high. Cisco is not cheap.

We evaluated the Fortinet solution. We've chosen Cisco over Fortinet as we felt Cisco offered just a bit more in terms of options. It became our solution of choice.

We're a service provider and a Cisco Partner. We use Cisco technology in implementing the services.

I'm not sure or which version of the solution we are using. It's likely the latest, however, I'm not sure of the version number.

The solution is deployed both on-premises and on cloud and with Meraki and with Stellar.

I would recommend the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The first part that we like is that we can reuse certain hardware, which is a valuable asset. You can use hardware SKUs that already exist in the network.

The second part that we like is the integration with the cloud and the measurement of the cloud's quality. These are the two values that this solution gives as compared to other implementations that we have seen.

Its license model needs to be improved. They always make the license model too complex. There are too many license models and too many options. They should have a flexible license model.

They can improve a lot of things in terms of scalability, templates, and automation, mainly automation for onboarding a number of sites.

If you want some new features, it can take quite a long time. If you want a feature and it is not yet developed, you need to have the support of the business units to have the feature developed. If the feature is not on their roadmap, it can take quite some time before you get the feature.

I have been using this solution for about a year.

Its stability is fine if you stay within certain releases. From the stability point of view of the releases, it is fine.

We don't have deployments that have more than 500 sites. That's our biggest deployment from one customer. I cannot say anything for huge deployments because we do not have a lot of metrics.

Their technical support is good. They know what they are talking about, and you can see that they are experienced in their product.

It is easy to set up for small deployments. If you go for larger deployments, you hit some limitations in the GUI, and it could be more complex. This is because not all features that we assumed to be available are available in the GUI. For example, you know there are some features in the traditional MPLS router, but these features are not available when you run the same hardware on Cisco SD-WAN. 

In small deployments, you don't see such an issue. In larger deployments, such as data center setups, you see some limitations popping up. Some features that we had in traditional routing are not available in Cisco SD-WAN. Bootstrapping is okay, but you are limited to the serial number. A limitation is that you need to link the serial number and the bootstrap process, which depends on the model. If you are used to working with a serial number, it is fine, but if you are not, it can be more difficult.

The license model is too complex with too many flavors and options. You might not be able to see it from an end user's point of view, but from a telco point of view, their license model is too complex. They should have a flexible license model. If you want to have good pricing, you need to buy it for a two-year, four-year, or five-year license immediately. Some other vendors have much more flexible license models.

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

The most valuable feature of Cisco SD-WAN is its compatibility and integration with the rest of the infrastructure.

Cisco SD-WAN could improve on the ease of integration, the configuration should be easier. At the moment the process is more command line based and it would be better if it was able to be done through an interface.

In a feature release, Cisco SD-WAN could add more features for wireless SaaS-based solutions.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for approximately two years.

Cisco SD-WAN is stable.

The scalability of Cisco SD-WAN is good.

The support sometimes is delayed. They could improve their response times. They are knowledgeable about the solution but you have to reach the correct person.

I rate the support from Cisco SD-WAN a three out of five.

Neutral

The initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN is not overly complex, but there should be a good understanding of the configuration and setup. There are many technical commands for the process that one should be aware of.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN a three out of four.

We used a third-party vendor help to implement the solution.

Overall, we are receiving a better financial cost advantage using Cisco SD-WAN than what we were using before.

I rate the ROI of Cisco SD-WAN a four out of five.

The price of Cisco SD-WAN could improve, it is expensive. The cost of the solution is approximately 30 percent higher than competitors.

I rate the price of Cisco SD-WAN a two out of five.

There are other competitors in the market that work well, such as Fortinet. The best solution is determined by its ability to handle a use case. There is not one overall best solution, there are suitable use cases for the different vendors.

If a customer is looking for a solution for a large enterprise, then I would recommend Cisco SD-WAN. However, if they have a small setup for a small business setup, Fortinet is better. It is integrated well with all the security features.

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

Our use cases are mostly focused on the application side and any kind of cloud breakout, like local breakout clouds.

I'm focusing on using the application ware routing.

There's not much that should be improved, but the focus should be on the application side and more cloud applications should be added into the system. Most common sales applications should be supported.

Mostly, I think cutting edge solutions should be included in this product. I'm talking about buzzwords like the cloud, for example. The solution should be more focused on the cloud because, apart from the controllers, everything can be cloud-based and everyone is moving to the cloud. Cyber security should also be implemented in the solution, along with maybe implementation of AI/ML.

I have been using this solution for about ten years.

The stability of the solution is good as of now. 

The solution has great scalability. The people using it are mostly senior management, junior management, and junior engineers. Maintenance for this solution requires about four people: two senior employees and two regular employees.

I have been using Cisco since the beginning. I am familiar with it and it's easy to deploy, so I am sticking with it for now. I have no plans to switch to any other products, but we are looking at integrating this product with other solutions. 

The initial setup was easy and straightforward.

The deployment was done in-house and did not take more than two to three days.

The return on investment is good. I mean, not when compared to the other solutions on the market, but it is pretty flexible and scalable, so you cannot only consider the cost. The solution has flexibilities that benefit you. The return on investment, if you ask me, can be seen in the long-term. If the organizations who are deploying it are looking to grow for a certain period of time, maybe a longer vision of five to seven years down the road, the solution will be helpful to them.

The licensing cost is slightly on the higher side, but some of the customers are large, so they are willing to pay for it. On a scale of one to five, I would rate Cisco's pricing as a three. 

My advice is that there might be some other solutions on the market that are also pretty good, so they need to understand their market and customer requirements. Think about which solution will be easy to deploy and also how scalable it will be. The strategy should be to understand the solution and have an approach and proper plan and roadmap before implementing the solution. Also, compute the information of the devices before implementing the solution.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.