Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

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.

The solution is primarily just for software-defined WAN or WAN edge solutions. We use it to connect to data centers.

All the features that they have in there have been great. The solution offers good quality of service, visibility, connectivity, and security. It's all of that stuff that makes it good. That is what's required.

Cisco is finding its footing in that area, and they're getting better.

For our team, the installation is pretty straightforward.

The solution can scale. We haven't had any issues doing so.

The quality could always continuously improve. For example, we've had stability concerns in the past.

Native connectivity into the major cloud providers would be ideal.

Often, the solution does require a specialized team to come in and assist with the initial setup.

Technical support could be more helpful and responsive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution could be more stable. There are issues that they've had to deal with.

The solution seems to be scalable so far. For all the opportunities we've been involved with, it's been good and we haven't hit a wall.

We do deal with technical support from time to time. Their tech support could be better. We are not 100% satisfied with the level of service they offer.

For us, the implementation is easy, as we are trained to handle it. The product usually requires somebody like us to come in there and help customers through this.

Deployment times vary depending on the client and the environment. It depends on how big, the opportunity, how many sites, how many branches, et cetera. All of that stuff comes into play.

We assist our clients with the implementation process.

I can't speak to the costs associated with the product. We get involved with just the installations, that's all.

We're a service partner. As implementors, we install all versions. Usually, however, when we get involved, it's always the latest version that we are installing.

I'd advise users to understand what they're getting. It's a good idea to probably do a POC to see it and make sure it meets all the requirements that the company is looking for before buying in completely.

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

We have deployed Cisco Meraki devices at 107 locations to connect with the cloud for centralized management. We are using MX68, MS120, and MR33.

We are currently also considering Cisco Meraki for another project for implementation at 28 locations. We have a team of three members looking into different solutions and vendors. We're looking into the firewall, SD-WAN, and email certificate.

The centralized management is the most important feature. We can monitor what is going on at every location in our network through just one center.

I would like them to add some more SD-WAN ports. We have seen one implementation where there were four ISPs. Currently, we have a maximum of two ports for ISP in this device. Therefore, we cannot connect directly, and we need other switches. There should be some option to have more than two ports for SD-WAN. 

I have been using this solution for seven to eight months.

I have faced issues with one or two boxes. We replaced those boxes.

Cisco provides the best support among all the vendors. It's the best in terms of technical support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. For one location, it would take around two days: one day for the configuration and connecting to the cloud and one day to go to the client location and deploy it.

Cisco Meraki dashboard is very good. It's simple, and you can enable and implement everything using this dashboard. Cisco Meraki is for large enterprises.

I recommend Cisco Meraki to all my clients who have different locations and want to have a centralized location. Every architecture is moving towards the cloud. Centralized management makes accessibility easier for one person. We can know what is going on at a location and what is going into the devices. Whatever configuration changes are required, we can do them from one place. We don't have to go to the client's location. We also don't have to log in to different devices to do configuration or something like that. We can do it from one centralized management.

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

We deployed Cisco SD-WAN primarily for our retail customers because they run on the traditional LAN. We migrated them to SD-WAN. They had more than 4000 locations. We didn't have to do anything manually for the failover of the circuit.

I like creating policies. This way, we can better utilize our WAN circuit and get better rates. Its GUI is user-friendly, and the CLI is also great.

It would be better if it provided more visibility. At present, we can't troubleshoot in real time.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for more than three years.

Cisco SD-WAN is very stable. It's a decent product. 

Cisco SD-WAN is a scalable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a nine.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

We deployed it the first time with the help of Cisco engineers. We had two Cisco engineers along with an in-house team of four.

I would tell potential users that if they are worried about the cost factor or want an easy plug-and-play solution, they can go ahead with this solution. It's straightforward, and you don't need highly technical people to use it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco SD-WAN a nine.

Cisco SD-WAN provides centralized telephony for our company. 

The most useful feature is centralized telephony.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about five years. 

Cisco SD-WAN is stable.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable. 

Cisco needs to improve the technical support for this solution. I rate Cisco support eight out of 10. 

Positive

Deploying Cisco SD-WAN wasn't complex, and it took about one month. 

I rate Cisco SD-WAN 10 out of 10. I recommend it.

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?

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.

The software for Cisco SD-WAN is overkill because the box is more powerful than required. Cisco needs to replace it with a normal router because the current one is very advanced. They expect a stable internet connection but then try to get sophisticated devices to connect to any infrastructure. However, the infrastructure requires only SIM cards, so it's not that difficult. Implementing a router and a dual-SIM router would be sufficient, but Cisco makes it complicated.

I cannot speak to additional features, but we've heard that Cisco may add analytics to the SD-WAN.

We have been using this solution for about nine months, and it is deployed on-premises.

I have not heard any complaints about the stability. The problem with this solution is with the interface, not the equipment.

I can not speak to the scalability, but we used Cisco SD-WAN for a big gas station digitalization project. The gas station had to be connected to a government-owned company and then deployed to 5,500 locations, so it was a big project. I believe a government-owned company currently completes the maintenance of the 5,500 locations.

Our company was just in charge of implementation and installation. I am unsure how many technicians they have, but the maintenance response is so slow, which may mean that the technicians are not well educated or trained about the SD-WAN. Regarding deployment, it took one person about two to three days to connect, configure and do the ATP.

The technical support is very responsive, but they lack resident experts. So they have to divert the support to Singapore or Australia. They should have experts locally to provide support.

The deployment is complex, and Cisco makes everything complicated. It took about two to three days to deploy, and the engineers completed it.

The solution is costly compared to Aruba. You also have to pay if you want to implement extra features like a VPN.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The Cisco brand is strong, and its connections to the government are also strong. Cisco has very good distribution and connections with universities, unlike other equipment manufacturers. In addition, they provide free seminars to government officials and receive allowances in return. Cisco does a great job managing its customers.

I believe Cisco and Palo Alto here in Jakarta and Indonesia are very strong compared to Aruba and Citrix. I last heard about Citrix when I worked with Nokia and Motorola ten years ago. Citrix only does password and computer synchronization, which is done from Singapore. Citrix also did not have local support about ten to 12 years ago.

Cisco has been around for quite a long time and gives a very good discount to system integrators if they try to sell their product. Although they have high published prices, the price for a distributor or reseller is very attractive with discounts sometimes as high as about 20% or 30%.