Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

The purpose of this solution is mainly for migration from the LAN circuit to the internet using a secure edge SD-WAN for communication.

We are using the latest version of this solution. The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

This solution is mainly used in the pre-sales department, and then it's implemented by the implementation team.

The scalability is the most valuable feature.

The platform needs to be updated to be more stable and simple.

I have been using this solution for three years.

Sometimes it's a little buggy, so there needs to be some updates to make the solution more stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is generally useful.

Cisco SD-WAN was our company's first choice, but they also use Fortinet.

The solution is "plug and play," but sometimes it needs manual intervention. Maintenance depends on the customer's number of devices.

Deployment is mainly done in-house.

It's costly. The cost is high compared to competitors.

There are many different licenses and devices. There's the license and the device itself as hardware, and the license as software. It varies between the hardware and software, and they have many free licensing models. So, there isn't an exact price. There are also many discounts in the middle before they provide it to the customer.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

My advice is to identify your real needs for the solution. Do you really need SD-WAN or are you just following the trends?

Initially, the primary use case was to lower costs, however, over time it has been to increase the availability of services according to the profile of the branches. 

Something very important is the security that this technology brings with it. We protect the data, we segment and give priority to what we need. In the same way, the possibility of being able to choose the underlay that I really need is great. Together with the type of service, the MPLS or Internet, is an advantage. In software-defined networks, the simplicity of doing things is its main characteristic.

It has allowed us to better understand the client's business. It breaks down a bit the traditional barriers of uptime and SLA and thus we are able to profile the branches in a better way.

Real-time traffic monitoring has become a fundamental tool for clients since it allows them to see what is happening in the moment and thus to be able to estimate trends or to project changes in a better and more assertive way.

The secure connection to the cloud is a gain when evaluating the traditional centralized internet links that generally exist in data centers.

Being able to see the traffic in real-time and know what application you are consuming, together with the possibility of taking your requirements directly from the cloud, has been useful.

Load balancing is a feature that allows us to take the best of our links and distribute the load intelligently, always with an eye on the end-customer experience.

Being able to prioritize, according to the applications, the exit and entrance of the traffic in a dynamic way, unlike the current quality of service that is rigid and static, is a tremendous advantage as it is done according to demands in real-time, so the customer experience is always the best.

It is transversal to all industries. What is important is to work on the costs of the solution.

On the technical side, manufacturer-independent solutions should be able to handle different topologies, simple or complex, and without having to invest more money in infrastructure or licensing.

What I also find should be improved is the possibility of really separating the software layer from the hardware layer since today the current offer is not well adopted by the service providers, which is why it does not reach the end customers. I understand this is an issue that directly affects the business goal of each manufacturer.

I've used the solution for five years.

The truth is that I started using an initial solution called IWAN, the intelligent network. It tried to take the best of current technologies and provide it in a network format. In my opinion, it did not achieve its goals.

It is not the cheapest solution on the market, however, without a doubt, it is one of the options that best handles complex topologies. Therefore there is a need to know more accurately what the client wants to do, what their applications are, what their flows are, and, after this consultation, define the best architecture and then choose the best manufacturer that obviously offers me a cost efficient option.

We evaluate the competition, however, within the same conditions, we wanted a dedicated equipment solution of bare metal, software, and hardware together plus the underlying layer.

This is a great solution.

Our primary use case is providing the servicing of this solution globally. Cisco is an experienced vendor, which is the main reason we chose this solution.

An area of improvement for this solution is reducing the complexity. Currently, the solution requires people who have a very good understanding of Cisco SD-WAN. 

For example, VeloCloud can be used and is easier to understand, but it has limited functionality. It is designed like a block box where the internal architecture is hidden. With Cisco, I can see the inner workings of the architecture. Therefore, it is necessary to have a good understanding of how the solution works in order make full use of it.

An additional feature that should be included in the next release of this solution is the ability to use a local area network (LAN) behind the domain name system (DNS) box. This feature would allow for better communication protocols to be put in place.

I have been using this solution for three years.

Since Cisco acquired Viptela, the stability of this solution has given problems since it is quite new. 

The scalability of this solution has given problems in the past since it is quite new. 

The customer service/technical support for this solution is very good.

The setup of this solution is both straightforward and complex. For example, the initial setup is simple, but the design and formatting thereafter is very complex.

The pricing of this solution is very expensive.

We would recommend this solution to customers looking to implement it on a global scale. We recommend the solution, not only because of the functionality or the technical support, but also because of the delivery of the solution, and the docking and upgrading capabilities.

We are using it for load balancing our network bandwidth. We haven't implemented it yet at any office. It will be done probably in a week.

Configuration interfaces are quite easy and intuitive. Being a part of the Cisco environment, Cisco SD-WAN is quite straightforward.

When you buy the equipment, they should already put it into your cloud account. It should already be set up so that we can manage with vBond. We came across an issue where it wasn't resolved in the DNS.

We are using Umbrella, so we need to create a VPN IPSec tunnel to Umbrella to enable the users to browse. I would really like to see an internal built-in firewall so that we don't have to go to Umbrella. This functionality might already be there. We are quite new to this solution, and we are still learning about it. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for a week. 

I would say neutral at this time because I am deploying this in an office this week. It seems okay in terms of stability. It hasn't crashed since it has been up.

I am pretty sure it is going to be high. At this point, it has low usage, but we will push it to the maximum of its capacity. 

I haven't contacted them.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to set up. Testing the deployment took a little bit of plug and play. I just plugged in two interfaces, and then it was in the cloud. It was quite easy.

We had a consultant who helped us with all this. He was perfect and knew everything. It needs two staff members for deployment.

I am going to see ROI because we removed MPLS sites. When you remove MPLS sites, you get some benefits on the monthly fee because MPLS always has a higher price. We are already seeing some improvement in the monthly fee.

It is going to be on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs.

I would recommend checking the exact amount of bandwidth that you really need. We have installed double one links for our office, but you probably don't need a gig link or a hundred mega link. 

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a five out of ten. I want to be in the middle because it is the first solution that we are testing. I don't know if it is the best or the worst. I have known Cisco, and I am pretty sure it is not the worst. They know what they are talking about. They have been working on networking stuff for a long time. I don't want to give a ten because I don't even have another solution to compare. 

To get a ten, a solution has to respond to our needs, and it should have good pricing because at the end of the day, in terms of routing and other things, all solutions are almost the same. It is the pricing that becomes the main factor.

With other routing protocols, we have had to send team members to perform installations and configurations. There is a lot of work involved. However with SD-WAN, once it is installed it is fully automated, and we can do all other tasks remotely. We don't have to send staff out to the client's location.

It's very independent, and we can establish SD-WAN connectivity easily. It is secure as well.

The cost is too high for certain countries, for example, those in Africa. The solution needs to be more cost-effective.

I would like to see AI functionalities added to future releases. I would also like to see endpoint protection features with encryption technology to prevent data from being copied from different locations.

We have been working with Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution. I have not seen any issues with stability. If you do the preventive management exercises, ensure that you have the right temperature, regularly perform inspections, and monitor the solution properly, then everything will work perfectly.

It is certainly a scalable solution. For example, you could start with the 10G module and upgrade to 40G, 100G, or DWDM. It is handled on a module basis.

We probably have 400 to 500 users.

The initial setup can be straightforward if you have experienced staff.

Cost-wise, Cisco SD-WAN is comparatively high. 

Cisco SD-WAN is a wonderful solution, and I would give it an eight out of ten. I recommend it because it is easy to establish connectivity and is an independent solution that does not require you send staff out to a client's location.

Full replacement of office to office, office to data center, and data center to data center MPLS and private lines with commodity Internet and SD-WAN.

80% reduction in WAN costs.

New sites can be onboarded in hours or days versus many months with carrier based technology. 

The most useful feature for our organization is the combination of on-prem and cloud-based deployments. We connect securely to our hybrid cloud using transit VPCs and cloud on-ramp for fast deployments. We have recently started using deep packet inspection allowing the use of the transit path as the firewall instead of putting firewalls on both ends of the mesh.

The inexpensive Viptela hardware may be replaced with overpriced Cisco routers. This would be a tragic mistake for Cisco as the lightweight commodity platform built by Viptela is the reason to own this solution. 

Since it was Viptela in 2017.

It is extremely stable. You can set it and forget it, if that is your thing. There are a lot of improvements with each full version release. As with all things Cisco, if you have the chance to wait for a few months before deploying the latest release, do it. They can be buggy for the first few months. 

It is very scalable. We have it deployed to 23 countries, AWS, Azure, and our data centers. 

MPLS, P2P lines and multi-point VPN mesh. These were either too expensive or required too much operational overhead. 

The team at Viptela,and subsequently at Cisco, were extremely engaged and ready to help ensure we had a successful deployment. The concept of an overlay and underlay can be intimidating if you are used to conventional networks, but you will get used to it. 

We deployed it ourselves with our own network engineers. 

80 percent reduction in WAN costs. There are no MPLS or P2P circuits left in the organization. 

Cisco, Citrix, and Fortinet.

Map out all of the applications that use your WAN today. If you have assets like physical phone systems or dedicated VPN devices that are not ready to be off-the-books, start the project anyway. As contacts and hardware become end of life, onboard those sites. You will have a full mesh in no time. If you wait for all of your existing technology to be end of life, you are missing the point.

We are working with telecom companies and many government companies. The main request is to tie the branches, separate the bandwidth depending on the application, and have a unified orchestrator to see all these connections from one centralized management center.

SD-WAN provides a range of common benefits, including cost reduction, increased visibility, and scalability. It can be seen as a replacement for MPLS. This applies to all vendors, not just Cisco. When someone requests SD-WAN from Cisco, they already recognize its value within their environment.

It is expensive. 

I have been using Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for three or four years. We are Cisco's golden partner.

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

The solution’s scalability is high.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product pricing is high. Fortinet is cheaper than Cisco.

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is used to connect users to network applications securely.

The segmentation, high security, and flexibility of the Cisco SD-WAN are the most valuable features.

The cost of Cisco SD-WAN is high and has room for improvement compared to competitors such as Fortinet which has similar functionality.

The technical support has room for improvement.

The UI has room for improvement.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for a couple of years.

Our engineers dislike dealing with Cisco technical support as they frequently face redirection and have to wait for months to get their issues resolved.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to deploy.

The price is based on the types of routers being used as well as the product licenses.

Fortinet FortiGate has a more comfortable UI and better logic than Cisco.

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

Cisco SD-WAN is mainly intended for medium to large enterprises as it provides significant benefits for organizations with distributed offices across different regions or countries.

I recommend that new users become familiar with all the features that Cisco SD-WAN offers, to enable them to complete their tasks effectively.