Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We are supporting many clients. Some of them have Cisco switches, and some of them have HPE. We are supporting their network and solving any requests. We are doing troubleshooting for them. For most of the clients, we do full support of the network, but it also depends on the service that they took from our company. Some of them don't give us access to their core switches, which is very rare. Most of the clients give us full access. If they need, for example, a new route, we edit the VLAN port configuration, port channels, etc.

We are also managing the wireless controller for all clients. We are supporting them by creating the wireless connection and changing the password periodically.

I recently discovered the DHCP feature. There is a feature with which you can make the core act as a DHCP server, and it will distribute the IPs for every device. I discovered this feature recently, and it is very nice.

Its price can be improved. Some devices can be very expensive.

I have been working with this solution for around two years.

It is stable.

If you follow the recommendation of Cisco, it is scalable. Sometimes, when there is anything wrong with it, we open a ticket with Cisco, and they recommend upgrading the IOS. 

We have many clients here. Most of them have Cisco. We have three clients with HPE. 

They are very nice and very quick.

Most of them are easy, especially if you have a stack solution. If it is arranged as a stack, it would be very easy to do an installation, and it also takes a shorter time than the standalone. One of the clients I worked with had a stack solution, and it was very easy. We just had to erase everything, put the new switch in there, and connect the stack cables and power cables. That was it. Sometimes, it can take the configuration from the flash.

The number of people required depends on the topology. If it is a big topology, you need two or three people. If it is a small topology, you need less number of people.

It is overpriced. Some devices can be very expensive.

Most of the clients have a contract with Cisco for two or three years.

There are different categories of switches. There are Layer 2 and Layer 3 switches. In Layer 2 switches, 2650 is nice. It is a good switch. In Layer 3, most of the switches are good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

I'm using almost six Cisco switches.

We use the solution for the LAN, Local Area Network, for the organization, or for business. 

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is good.

They are managed switches, and we can control and manage almost all of these switches - even individually, one by one, or through a central control center.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The device age becomes an issue. For example, with the 2960 version, they're not supporting that one anymore. I find that the device or the model age is a little bit short. It is five or eight years. When we have a big organization, we have 100 or 200 switches, and suddenly it's out of support, end of support, or end of life, or whatever, it's difficult as we cannot change switches every five years. At a minimum, they should last ten years. That's better. To upgrade, it's a huge budget. Therefore, the age of the product itself is a little bit short. They really should make it longer.

The technical response could be faster in the future. 

I've been using the solution for maybe ten years or so. It's been a while. 

The solution is perfectly stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is pretty good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have up to 600 or 700 users. It's not measured per user. Rather, it is per device. We have many devices on top of users.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

I have contacted technical support in the past. They are fine, however, they are a little bit slow.

We did not previously use a different solution. We've always used Cisco products.

The solution is easy to install for administrators and network engineers. People who are qualified in networking shouldn't face any issues. It's fine, it's easy.

The amount of time it takes to deploy a switch depends. If it is at layer switch, it will not take more than one hour, maximum, for each switch. However, if it is a core switch, it might take one day.

The size of the team you need for maintenance also depends. If we are going for an upgrade, we need a big team. However, if it is just for troubleshooting, only two engineers are required.

We can handle the implementation ourselves. We do not need any integrators or consultants. 

We can use the switches without licenses. However, with licenses, yearly licenses, it is better, as we will have more troubleshooting options and control options, through a control center device.

We use various versions of the solution. For the access layer switch, we have different models, including 2950 and 2960. Now, we are using the 9K series, 9200. The latest one. This is for the access layer. For core and distribution switches, we have 6500 and 4500 versions.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate them at a nine out of ten.

We use Catalyst switches to extend our network throughout the facility. It's a big facility, so we need to use switches the ABS to get the signal out to the entire facility.

I like Cisco because you are dealing with something old that the new generation doesn't know about, like telnet or how to configure the switch. I don't like simple GUIs where you can do everything with a click. 

I can't use older Cisco devices with newer versions of the controller or switches. For example, if a switch was manufactured in 2014, I can't use it with a controller made in 2019. I have to change the switch so that I can upgrade my network or my devices. I don't have the option to update the version I have on the image of the AP or the controller.

Also, in the K5 Series of the switches —  Cisco calls them "Core" switches — they have some commands that Catalyst doesn't support, so you have to know the command lines for two different devices to configure them. It's a bit confusing when you are working on both at the same time, and you have some problems, then you notice that you didn't use the correct command for that switch.

I've been using Cisco Catalyst for five years, but I've only been working with the solution in-depth for the past few months.

Catalyst Switches are reliable. We don't have major problems like lost connections, and we only have a minor issue with something every few months. In the last five years, a switch broke down once, and that was due to human error.

Cisco customer service is excellent. We had some issues with devices, and Cisco replaced them for us. We had some significant problems with one of the switches because they changed the image. It took a while, but overall, the support is good.

It's not hard if you have some networking experience. I didn't deploy the switches by myself. We had some help from the vendor, and I supervised them.

With some competitors, yes, it's about, let's say very high price. Half the price you can get Jupiter, or I think also, I forget the brand, TP-Link, you can have something like that, but half the price with it, with maybe also advanced features to deal with it.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst switches seven out of 10.

The price could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 25 or 30 years,

We don't have any issues with the stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable.

We have approximately 20,000 people who use this solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

It is easy to install. Most of the engineers already know about it.

The pricing could be cheaper.

There is a one-time license, but we pay for the smart net license every three years for support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a ten out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for getting network switching and routing for the telephone exchange here.

The solution is rather inexpensive.

The product has very good routing capabilities.

The installation process is very straightforward.

We would like the solution to be more stable.

I've been using the solution for about five years or so. It's been a while. 

The solution's stability is questionable. It's something they could work on. It would be ideal if it had better performance and reliability.

I've bever dealt directly with technical support as everything so far has been fine. We haven't had any issues or required any assistance so far.

We previously used Huawei switches, however, we do not use them anymore. We have completely moved away from them.

We have found that the installation process isn't overly complex or difficult. It was pretty straightforward and simple for us. We didn't face any complexity issues. 

For every switch, it took a few hours to be adjusted and managed.

We only needed one technical person for deployment and maintenance.

We had a manager that was able to handle the initial setup. We didn't hire any consultants or integrators.

We found the product to be reasonably priced. It's not too expensive.

We do not pay a licensing fee to use the product.

We use various versions of the solutions, including versions 12 and 15X.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We're mostly happy with the product.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

My primary use case of this solution is for connecting up drivers and desktops. I'm a system administrator and we're a customer of Cisco. 

I like the expandability of the solution. I have a pair of 6509 catalyst switches and they use the add on boards. I also like the dual power supplies. 

We are not working off the latest version so the switches on the product are very old and that could be improved. The one gig boards are strictly one gig and not backward compatible. This switch also does not have power over ethernet, so that's old.  

I'd like to see a better web interface. I can't tell you what the existing generations have so I'm sure there have been improvements. These are so old and I'm sure modern switches now have much better tools to interface with them.

I've been using this solution for over 10 years. 

It's clearly very stable, otherwise we wouldn't be using it anymore. The fact that we still use it shows how stable it is. 

That switch was very scalable because itwas one of the ones that had nine slots in it. So it could have additional boards within.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward but we're not doing anything fancy with it.

We're not paying maintenance - these switches were end of life years ago. Maintenance is separate from licensing. Now there is no additional monthly recurring cost on the Cisco switches that we are running.

This solution has been good to us, it's very solid.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

I design, implement, and troubleshoot networks that use Cisco switches. I am involved in every part of the design, including wireless.

The biggest advantage of having this solution is that it is easy to find engineers, and they are cheaper than hiring HP engineers. HP engineers are difficult to find and you have to train them, which brings up the price of an HP solution.

Cisco switches are really expensive compared to other solutions, which is something that should be improved. They are almost double in price.

As of late, Cisco has been moving from one technology to the next and they don't support each other. If you want new features then you have to buy a new product and forget about the old one. This is from a licensing perspective. For example, the Cisco DNA license versus then Cisco One license are things that I don't know about.

I would like to see better compatibility between Cisco and other vendors. There are a lot of features that are for Cisco devices only, and when you bring in a second or third vendor there are a lot of problems. Fixing this incompatibility would be an improvement. I have not tried a lot of other brands, but I have connected both Huawei and Aruba Wireless with Cisco. Connecting Huawei with Aruba Wireless works well with no hangs. However, connecting Cisco and Huawei is terrible. Sometimes you have to restart one, whereas other times you have to restart the other. I do not recommend mixing equipment between these two companies.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst switches for close to 11 years.

If the switch is set up properly in the first place then you don't need to come back to do anything with it. This is especially true with the Catalyst 3750. It is the most stable thing in the world. I have found that some of the newer switches will hang or lose their configuration, but this never happened with the 3750.

For example, I have faced a lot of problems with the 3850, especially if there are Aruba access points. Sometimes, it will just reject the access point, although when I bring a new one, it will allow it. Sometimes the VLAN, itself, hangs. Then you can put in another VLAN and it will work. There are a lot of mysterious things that I could not find an explanation for.

I have not faced any problem with scalability.

In my opinion, the Catalyst switches are for enterprise-level organizations with 5,000 or more employees. If there are 1,000 or fewer employees then any switch will manage.

Some of the places I have worked in had networks with 20,000 to 70,000 users. 

I have not contacted technical support from Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have received support but I just keep reading, then trial and error until I get it. I wouldn't want to pay for support if I don't use it. The only time I would require support is a hardware failure.

I have worked on two projects in the past where support licenses were purchased for a year. What I found was that I could purchase four additional switches and in total, they would cost less than the support. Those switches then go into storage and if one of the others fails then a replacement is available. Ultimately, it is much, much cheaper.

I have always used Cisco networking solutions, although we are opening a new branch and I think that this time, we will use HP. They do not want to pay one to two million dollars for IT infrastructure. With HP, if they have to pay half a million then they will approve it.

I have experience with a hybrid environment where it was a Cisco LAN and an HP Aruba wireless LAN, and I didn't like it. I was losing some great options. Based on that experience, I think that all of the hardware should be from a single vendor. Either Cisco all the way, or HP Aruba all the way.

It is very easy and very straightforward to set up and deploy. It takes maybe 15 to 30 minutes to get it working.

The price of Cisco equipment is very expensive and you have to pay extra for support.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to design the system well before deploying it. You have to consider all of the aspects and all of the options. Always beware. If there is a 1% chance of failure then consider it to be a 90% failure rate because when it fails, you will have options. Always have a plan A, B, C, and D. In my experience, sometimes all of the plans will fail, and sometimes the first one succeeds.

I can't give them a perfect market but they undeniably are of good quality.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for routing, switching, and for interconnecting sites.

It has become easier for us to troubleshoot and find issues faster in the management software for the switches. It saves us troubleshooting time because if the network is down it has a big impact on production.

The stability is the most valuable feature. We have some outages but it's 95% stable. 

The newer models are not so stable. Other products like 6800, 3750, were stable but starting from 3850 it got worse. We have a lot of issues and a lot of bugs. It's a new product so it's understandable but it should be improved. 

Scalability is easy. It's easy to increase the size of our network, we use templates. 

We haven't had to use their technical support. 

We wanted a reliable solution so we chose Cisco. We began working with them ten years ago. We have everything on Cisco and it's not worth it to switch everything to another brand. 

The initial setup is a bit complex but we have templates so we just have to deploy our template configuration. The VLAN configuration was complex. We have STP and different protocols which are not on the V-port so we had to enable it.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Ten years ago we used Avaya and HPE. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. Not a ten because we are highly satisfied with all of their products but with the newer products, some parts have problems that take a while to fix.

I would say to go for Cisco. It is a stable and quality solution.