Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

The product is used in the hotels for the network.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are the most stable. The network is secure. I have a lot of options. If a port is not used for a long time, it will be disabled by default. If anyone tries to use it, I will have to enable it for them. The tool helps me secure my network. The product is easy to use. We do not face any challenges.

Cisco is the most expensive product. All hardware tools have become very expensive nowadays.

Cisco is the most stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

All our reports are based on Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment takes 10 to 15 minutes.

We can deploy the tool in-house.

I prefer one-time payments.

I have worked with all the brands in the market. I will recommend Cisco to others. It is stable. It has good quality. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I never had downtime with Cisco Catalyst Switches in the last eight years, and I'm pretty impressed with its reliability.

The only drawback I saw with Cisco Catalyst Switches is that it's not cloud-managed. We have to manage them on-premises.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches in one of our hospitals for the last eight years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a highly stable solution.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a pretty scalable solution. Around 2,000 people in the hospital use the solution on a daily basis.

I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten for scalability.

I rate the solution's technical support around six to seven out of ten because they are not very responsive. You have to log a TAC ticket, and then you have to wait for them to come back.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup and configuration a six to seven out of ten.

We have around 108 Cisco switches, and it took a couple of hours to deploy each switch. The whole installation took around a couple of weeks. We had to connect to the console of each switch and configure it before configuring the next switch. It took some time to deploy the switches because they were on-premises. We could have configured the switches remotely if they were on the cloud.

We implemented the solution through a reseller. We placed the order with Cisco, and they had their partner do it for us.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is an affordable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six to seven out of ten.

We use access, edge, and core switches from Cisco. Since it's not cloud-controlled, we need a specialist or network engineer to configure the solution. As far as reliability and stability are concerned, I would recommend Cisco Catalyst Switches to other users.

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

We use them in multiple projects in the organization.

So we provide access to approximately 600 users. They use access points, and some of them are designated for core features.

The benefits are that it is pretty easy to configure, deploy, and troubleshoot. There are no issues because we have a lot of knowledge-based access from Cisco itself. So troubleshooting is smooth, and it's good for both plugging and troubleshooting.

Power over Ethernet (PoE) is one of the most valuable features. It eliminates the need for power supplies every time. 

Then, the stacking capability allows me to stack nine or ten switches. With that, I don't need to log into every switch individually; I can access all of them through one. That's the second thing. 

Third, they can be used with automation pretty easily. Our organization is not currently using automation, but we're planning to. I've used it on virtual platforms, like emulation software, and they work well with automation. That's a good thing. 

Another point is that I've worked with various Cisco switches, including the 3900 series, 800 series, 2900, and 2600 switches. In the past, the environment used to be dusty and tested, but these devices, even the older ones, worked remarkably well. I was amazed because any other device might have failed in those conditions, but these switches performed admirably.

It has everything covered, from automation to a non-automated environment.

Customization is okay, but it's not fully fledged because if it's not modular switches, you can not change it. 

Cost-wise, they are expensive, but the service they provide is very good. However, the solution should aim for a little bit more cost-effectiveness.

There is room for enhancement in customization and pricing models. 

I have been using this solution for more than five years. I am still currently working with the Cisco Catalyst switches, specifically the Catalyst 3900 series in my current organization.

I haven't seen any issues with stability or durability. Even the older ones work well in the worst-case scenarios.

The product is scalable. However, some features or technologies owned by Cisco can be a bit troublesome while deploying. They cannot be embedded with other vendors.

The customer service and support need a bit more improvement and a faster response. So, there is an area of improvement.

Positive

I have also worked with ASR 9000 and XR series routers. I have worked with enterprise routers for a longer duration, around five years.

The deployment is good. The knowledge base and articles are available for normal users, so they can configure it well. If needed, we can raise a complaint ticket, and we get good tech support for that too.

If everything is ready and set up, including detailed information and physical products, it takes around two to three hours, max.

It's not difficult, but it requires maintenance. They have engineers for that, and they come for regular maintenance, check, and update or replace parts if needed. They also have AMCs for regular maintenance.

It is worth the money. The product is expensive, but the service they provide is very good, which makes it worth it.

It is a good product. It's a low-maintenance product, a little bit costly, but worth it. Good technical support also. It is vendor-specific, and you need to have these things for the configuration part and deployment. Everything is good, so there are no issues while deploying with other vendors.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because I expect a little bit faster support from the technical support team.

We use this solution for everything layer 2 related to our infrastructure, from data centers to local networks. Our business is airports, so we utilize them throughout the entire airport infrastructure.

On a day-to-day basis, we use it for all switching layers, like access, core, or distribution. We also utilize 802.1X.  

This solution has a pretty good rate of not causing unexpected behavior or failing. We're using maybe 900 switches right now. And, rarely, if ever, something fails, it's dependable.

First of all, there are some features that take a long time to get implemented, and other vendors have them for a long time before them. For example, it took a long time to have a way to commit change with the timer, so it gets undone if the user doesn't accept the change after it's done. Like, having to say the changes be done, and everything works fine. In the end, everything works fine, but it didn't exist. That's just an example of stuff that came late to Catalyst. 

The CLI structure is mostly outdated sometimes. It doesn't really make sense how things connect to each other. It's not object-oriented, stuff like that.

Moreover, if you want to stack switches, you can't really do it except that you have stack modules, which I find is outdated. Like Juniper Switches, stacks, even switches that were on different locations over Layer 3, and stuff like that. I'd suggest stacking to take cues from other vendors. 

I have been using it for decades. Currently, I operate as the end user. In my previous role, I acted as an integrator, and we partnered with Cisco.

Sometimes, we have issues with stability. We even have some switches, like, that simply stopped working. Like, something went off, but it is not a usual occurrence. It's quite rare.

The way we design things, we could scale them. We could scale, meaning that we could add more switches to our current design. But we're not at this point because there's no need yet. We pretty much thought about it right in the beginning.

We have about 750 users using this solution in my company.

Sometimes, it's quick and helpful. Sometimes, we did have one case that took, like, months, and, eventually, things got solved after upgrading newer firmware that, by then, had been released. However, tech support did not solve the case.

I have used HPE and Juniper in the past. I've also used Dell Power Connect and Luxul. First of all, they're on the more pricey end. They cost more than most. I'm not sure if that's true today, but when I still had to take into account money when it was my job to take into account money, they were on the pricing. So that's an accounting pro.  HPE and Juniper, which were fine switches, both of them for, like, two-thirds of the price or something like that.

Stability, plus the fact that resources are very easily found. Moreover, everybody knows how to work with Cisco. Also, if anyone gets certified, we'll most probably start getting certified by Cisco because it's an industry-standard certification. So, people who work with Cisco are easier to find. And they pretty much work as advertised. 

Cons: there are features that Cisco lacks interface-wise, like UI stuff that could be a lot better. For example, take a look at Juniper, and it's like night and day.

We're currently transitioning to Catalyst 9200 series. We still have a lot of Catalyst 2960s in various locations, but they're being replaced with new ones.

We don't have any central management for the Switches. So it all gets done with copying, phasing, changing IPs, or whatever is relevant. So, the setup is not complicated as long as you know what you're doing. But that goes for everything, I guess. Like, if you already know how it works, then it's not complicated.

The setup is straightforward for me because I know what I'm doing. However, the CLI and the way iOS is structured could take a lot of improvement. There are some things in there. You have to know that they connect in a certain way, or else you won't ever find how it works. You need your Google open for a lot of stuff if you don't already know it.

I was a part of the deployment team. We had already designed what needed to be deployed. We have multiple locations and multiple airports. Each airport was not in the same condition as the other ones. 

For example, each airport had its own separate preexisting network. So, there were different strategies that we had to use in each airport to deploy the switches without disrupting the airport functions. It was not the same thing everywhere. 

In general, we had a pretty simple design of what we needed, how many switches were sized, and what we expected in terms of customers. It was a pretty standard design to construct a backbone and distribution point within the airports. So, it was pretty much doing three or four templates. And just changing the variables on those templates. That was it.

We don't need a lot of resources or staff members for the deployment part because it depends on the size of the airport again. Like, if there were 300 devices to be deployed, we would need 15+ people. So, it depends on size.

Also, the time depends on the physical properties of the site that you are on. Where are the switches going to be installed? Where, in what condition is this place? Is it still under construction? Is it already constructed? Is it somewhere that's difficult to reach? All these are variables that should indicate how many people you need.

However, maintenance could be a bit more automated. Maybe if Cisco have a central management console or something, then it is more automated. The way we do it, we have to upgrade by ourselves. Like, it's stuck, or it's switched separately by hand. Using FTPs and FTPs and the old way of doing stuff. So, if there's a management, it's a central management tool. When we do maintenance, it's a hassle.

I would recommend using the product. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Our clients use it to build a network based on level two and level three Cisco switches, and that's all.

Sometimes, people choose Cisco because it's Cisco. And that's all.

We are a vendor for the healthcare sector, especially hospitals, and normally, we use a full Cisco solution for stability, especially for the stability of the Access Points and the security of switches.

This gives the client more comfort when choosing, for example, Huawei or other brands. They feel more comfortable with Cisco.

The biggest barrier to buying Cisco or using Cisco is the price and also the competition with competitors and with Cisco partners.  

We don't find any problems with Cisco switches except the competition pricing with other Cisco partners, especially because we are a seller and implementer. Sometimes, we find ourselves in front of partners who have better prices than us.

The biggest challenge in using the Cisco solution is the relationship with partners or Cisco partners.

Even sometimes we have clients who need to work with us. And even the needs and the bill of materials are established by us, but unfortunately, at the end, they don't buy from us because of pricing from other partners.

Competitors' prices are cheaper. 

I have been familiar with this product for more than ten years. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a very stable product. 

The scalability is good. Sometimes, it has about 500 network points. 

Our clients are hospitals, for example, ranging from 50 to 200 beds.

Not big hospitals, but medium-sized hospitals. The most recent one was between 300 to 500 users.

The support is good. Even if we don't need a lot of support, what we got is stable enough. But when we need support, the support team is there.

Positive

It was a little bit difficult the first time, but now, because we have the model, it's very simple for us.

Because we work especially for one sector of the industry, which is hospitals, we have a fixed model to set up the network. So, it's very easy for us to set up a Cisco network in those hospitals.

A few years ago, we established a model for installation in those hospitals, and now it's okay. Our technicians know how to do it. So they can set up the entire network within one week.

The deployment takes one-week maximum. 

I would rate the pricing a ten out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

I would recommend using it because of its stability and high quality.

Overall, the whole solution is good. I would rate it a seven out of ten. The pricing and competition from partners are the main two issues. It's not fair competition.

I accept competition with another seller or integrator like me. But if I find someone in the market who is an integrator, reseller, and distributor all at the same time, it's not fair competition.

Our primary use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches for campus-wide local area networks. We have configured it to power and support LAN nodes and facilitate separate VPNs, terminating routers for secure remote communication.

The platform significantly improved our organization by addressing latency issues in our network. Previously, banking operations were impacted by switch-related disruptions.

The platform is reliable and easy to use.

The product’s pricing needs improvement.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2007.

The platform is stable. We never encounter any issues and receive regular updates. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

We have over 400 Cisco Catalyst Switches users in our organization.

When we needed access to resources or encountered issues with the software solution, we utilized the help desk provided by Cisco.

Positive

We have worked with HP before. Later, we switched to Cisco to create a wide network area.

The initial setup was straightforward as there was ample availability of resources within our country trained in Cisco equipment.

Our deployment model primarily involved an on-premises setup for the Cisco Catalyst Switches. At the headquarters, we deployed the core and distribution switches to create a robust network infrastructure. The core switches served as the backbone, while smaller switches, likely the Cisco Catalyst 900 series, were deployed in branches for more streamlined connectivity. The network was interconnected through routers, facilitating efficient communication across the organization. Additionally, we implemented an MPS deployment to enhance network performance and management.

The product is worth the investment considering consistency in efficient operations without compromise. We experienced minimal downtime, attributed not to Cisco equipment but external factors like power issues in the grid. It is a robust solution.

We had to pay for the product’s licenses.

It is easy to access the console and troubleshoot the issues. It has effective protocols implemented within Cisco devices.

We use this solution for LAN connectivity. We also use it for routing capabilities. It can become an L3 switch.

Cisco has a well-maintained library of maps and features that we use to monitor. 

One of the most valuable features is the IP SLA feature that allows you to connect the routes or to switch the routes when there is static. Also, the flow exporter tells you which host is using a lot of traffic or where they all are transferring data.

It gives you transparency into your network.

It supports multicast routing. We use Ganglia to monitor the Condor Grid. Ganglia transmits statistics that are multicast. Because it has multicast forwarding routing capabilities, it is also usable.

IP SLA or NetFlow are things that are presented in Catalyst and are extremely easy to use.

It also supports QoS. Basically, it can configure layer 2 or layer 3 QoS to prioritize the traffic that we want.

They have a robust monitoring system.

Most of the time, I struggle with the bugs. I don't find it very challenging to configure these because I have been using them for the last eight years, so I am pretty comfortable with the CLI. With these bugs, I don't know the configuration for a one time task, you configure it, you deploy it, and you forget about it.

The biggest issue we are having is with bugs and memory loss, which occurs when developing the IOS.

We also had an issue with Nexus 3548. The CPU started stalling and the switch became unresponsive. We had to call support and have someone remove that cable immediately, as we are not able to travel due to the COVID situation. Once the cable was removed, the switch came back to life.

I searched through the log and learned what happened. The CPU was stalled for 11 seconds. I searched Google and on the Cisco bug tracker, and I found that it was a bug. There is no workaround for that. It was a huge loss for us and we lost money as a result.

There was nothing that I could have done to prevent this from happening. This is a management interface that is supposed to be used to manage the device. I connected the cable not knowing that the bug existed.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for eight years.

We are going to be upgrading to the latest version because there are a few bugs in the release that we are currently using. We are facing issues with it causing the memory to be depleted. The bug is in the operating system itself.

Despite the bug issues we are facing, it is a stable solution. It is partly our fault as we have not upgraded to the newer version.

This solution is scalable. I don't think that it is stackable, but with a recent Catalyst that we have purchased, it provided four 10G uplinks.

Catalyst is installed in a central location. Everyone who connects to the company network goes through a Catalyst switch, one way or another. The switch is placed strategically so that we have the data of every incoming and outgoing connection. There can be 100 to 200 users.

We raised a case with the memory leak issue that we were facing and they said that we will need to update our device. In general, they are very good at what they do.

The initial setup was extremely simple. We are engineers and know the plan beforehand how it will be used, how many ports will be used, what kind of configuration it will have, where the ports will be connected, and where the device will be mounted.

It's easy for us to configure and deploy. It takes two to three hours.

The device goes into the co-location center, where our cabinets are. The switch is mounted and we configure a management IP on that interface. 

The deployment doesn't always involve us, as we are not always able to travel to the locations. Instead, we ask them to contact the vendor to install and connect the device.

The implementation is done through a vendor and our team.

They install licenses for 24 ports and then an additional 24 ports. The client is able to use the 48 ports or just 24 port if they want.

The cost of a license before COVID and before the lockdown was approximately three lakh 70,000 in Indian Rupees. After this COVID situation, the cost has gone down to two lakh 46,000 rupees.

The additional cost depends on where the device is being installed. If it's shared then we have to pay the rent for that cabinet where the device is being installed.

The device has only the chassis cost and the licensing cost.

In two or three years, we renew the support contract and that is an additional charge.

Our environment includes a heterogeneous network. It's not all in the same place geographically, where some of the servers are in India, some are in Delhi, some are in Mumbai, London, Chicago, and Brazil.

The monitoring of the device is in the day-to-day operations.

We don't have a lot of traffic, we run simulations. We need high-capacity servers. In terms of network devices, we don't need much. When we need better switches or better devices, we have Nexus. They are used so that there is the lowest latency possible and maximum throughput.

We have point-to-point lead lines to connect to those sites, as well as architect tunnels.

Overall, it's a very robust switch and it's very nice.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The last Catalyst I used was for a core solution in an airport. That was a 3850. The previous use case was as the backbone of an ISP. We used different models of Cisco Catalyst including 3560s and 3700s.

When we started working with a regular Catalyst, the 2060, we mostly had a VLAN-based network. But in 2015, I worked with a well-known NGO, World Vision, in Bangladesh. They have around 84 locations all over the country, and they expected that their entire network would be authenticated through 802.1X. They expected that their network would be centrally policy-driven and allocated, that they would have posture assessment, and captive portal. Other than using a Catalyst, we couldn't have afforded to have these features.

In my country, Catalysts are used mostly for simple distribution, not more than that.

There were some other areas we've worked on the last two years. Most of the organizations who were going for Catalyst switches with Layer 2 options expected Identity Services integration. They were concentrating on having 802.1X authentication policy-making.

Recently I have had a little hiccup working with Catalyst switches. They used a few power integration features but I'm not sure they really resulted in much power saving. But, it caused cross-vendor equipment trouble.

For example, if I put some sort of equipment other than Cisco in a Cisco network, where the energy is marked as an option for Catalyst, sometimes I end up with a link breakage situation. This is because Cisco can understand its own structural power dependency and optimization, but it cannot understand the power optimization for other vendors' equipment. I had a really tough time managing the networks.

Also, Cisco has been introducing some software options in Layer 3 switches. I don't find that to be important so far, when there are have SDN options all over the world now. Certain switches are even leaving that out of the licensing option, and they are providing you embedded options so that you can actually use open-source SDNs. I don't believe that this is a good option, that Cisco is actually keeping so many licensing options for Catalyst. That is my opinion on the Catalyst 9000 series.

So far, I haven't really found any lack of stability. The switches are really good. The Catalyst 2960 switches had some issues earlier, power issues as I mentioned. It had more port failure and port damage issue than previous versions. But after we found the 2960-XR and others, they really improved.

I have been happy with Catalyst performance. It's doing better.

In terms of scalability, it's really working fine.

Cisco tech support is really slow. In the time it takes them to actually understand a scenario, we have mostly found our way out on our own.

In 2015, when I had a major deployment, I had an issue resulting from a captive portal for a 2960-Plus switch with IC. I opened a ticket. The call created questions and seven days went by. So I had to intervene in the entire operation, and found that it had a workaround, and I instructed my engineers to do that. Eventually, the problem was solved, but I really wanted to see whether Cisco could solve the problem. So I kept the ticket going and asked them what they were doing, what results they were providing, because there are certain areas they are expert and, ultimately, they can actually tell me what is the better way to do that. But after 21 days, I found that they were not getting anywhere, whereas in 10 days, we had already solved the problem. Then I asked my people to close the ticket because there was no use keeping it open. It was better that we resolved it ourselves.

So I don't appreciate Cisco tech support.

I have been using different switches side-by-side.

There have been certain issues. There was one implementation where Cisco was awarded up to the firewall and Dell was awarded from the server farm to all the servers in storage: the server from the switch, then the Dell MXL blade switches. That was the time got to compare the Dell performance with the Cisco Nexus 5 series performance. We found that Dell's performance was much more flexible than Cisco Nexus.

There was another case where I was using PowerConnect with the Dell EqualLogic. When we purchased a Dell EqualLogic, we had to buy a good throughput Cisco switch. When we compared the Cisco switch price with the Dell PowerConnect, we found that Dell PowerConnect was much cheaper. We had certain Cisco switches already. When we compared these switches side-by-side, we found that the PowerConnect was performing much better with the iSCSI.

I'm not saying that I shifted from another vendor, but I actually use these things side-by-side, considering several situations.

I wouldn't say the setups are really that complex because most of the setups we have done in Bangladesh were basically structured data center diagrams, which we have found from Cisco or any other network architecture. Those were pretty simple architectures.

If you consider Cisco's price with the Dell, you will definitely lose with Cisco. But Cisco has a major area of equipment in general. Cisco has routers, firewalls, NAC, certain video conferencing, Apple phones, and different security solutions. But Dell doesn't have such areas, Dell only has switching architecture.

On that basis, Cisco is still better, because whenever someone is actually moving towards Cisco products, they have to consider that they have certain other areas that they can invest in with Cisco. But if you consider the pricing of a Cisco switch against a Dell, Dell is definitely the winner.

I have used Cisco side-by-side with Dell and Maipu, and I found that Cisco is good. But if you compare Cisco's performance with these two, you will find that Dell and Maipu are not that bad. I wouldn't say that Maipu is that much of a product, but Dell is really performing well in comparison to Cisco.

Considering the performance, I really chose Dell. But when I have to consider that I'll have to move forward on the next project with certain security integrations, I have to consider Cisco. That is mostly the reason I considered Cisco. Otherwise, Dell would definitely have been the winner.

If you are considering going for a Dell or Cisco or Huawei, even certain other products out there, Dell has really good performance, and Huawei is also doing really well. ZTE is there, certain other organizations are there. But I always pitch good solutions for Cisco. I do that because Cisco has a variety of products, and Cisco has an enterprise-class solution. 

Whenever we are providing solutions to our customers, we have to consider security. On that basis, Cisco has a variety of security products. They have IAC, they have good sandboxing with Threat Grid. They have a benchmarking monitoring system. Then they have ESA and WSA. They have FirePOWER. They have a major cloud system security for Talos. Whenever you find Cisco is not actually putting the emphasis on perimeter fire-walling, they are saying "Save your endpoints. Secure your network. Monitor your network." Do surveillance.

On that basis I find, even if you go through the incident case analysis globally, you'll find that most of the incidents in the last eight or 10 years are happening inside a network. We need to focus on the internal user network. Cisco has a really good option, a one-dashboard option for maintaining and surveilling your entire network. So I give my customers a Cisco pitch, for that reason.

Overall, I am really happy with the 2960G switches, 2960-XR switches, but not that fond of 3560 switches and 3650 switches. And I am really a fan of 3850 switch, considering its performance.