Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

I use Catalyst Switches in the lines of our local networks. We also use ASR routers from Cisco in one. We have other branches and about 20 or 30 buildings. It's a very large network.

The most valuable features of Cisco Catalyst are the DHCP features that I use in our routers and the PfR connections. Someone said a long time ago that he who buys Cisco is never fired. They have good solutions. 

At present, we are adopting many cloud solutions. We are connected to several cloud platforms and do a lot of business in the cloud. So I think that in general, we don't need many features at the moment unless we want to create some applications on the cloud. But that's not the case right now. We are thinking of moving all the people from these 20 buildings to one building. So with all of them in the same building, we'll need to design a new architecture. We have the ACI in our data centers, so we must see how all of this works. We don't know if we'll go to SD-LAN too. So I don't know if we'll use Catalyst or another solution—a solution with ACI, SD-WAN, or SD-LAN. At this moment, I can't say because we are starting to think about this new design.

I've been using Catalyst Switches for about 25 years.

Catalyst Switches perform very well, and the network is stable. 

Catalyst Switches are scalable.

If we have a major problem, fixing it takes two or three days and six to eight engineers from Cisco. When they escalate a ticket, it goes through too many levels. Every time the issue is passed along to a new person at Cisco support, they ask the same questions repeatedly. However, if we have a problem that requires a quick fix, Cisco support can handle it in one or two hours. But if we need two or three guys from them, it gets complicated. I don't know if the problem is, but it seems like they spend too much time analyzing the problem and passing it along to other people. Other vendors like Palo Alto and Aruba resolve problems more quickly.

Having worked with Cisco for at least 25 years, I think it's easy, but I don't know if someone with less experience would say the same. It's easy because it's very fast. We have some labs where we implement things, and then it's mostly copy-paste — copy the configuration and paste into a new suite. So it's not difficult. Catalyst Switches don't require much maintenance. Sometimes we have problems in our network, but mostly they're not actually problems with the network itself. The business thinks that the problems are in the network, so we must call Cisco to help us prove that we don't have a problem. We can prove that, but if the data service is from Cisco, it's better. All of them. We have about seven or eight people in my company working directly with the Catalyst Switches.

Catalyst Switches are costly. When I started working with them 25 years ago, prices were a problem too. In my opinion, they are good, of course, and they are the answer to all of our questions. I can say that.

I rate Catalyst Switches nine out of 10. I would recommend them to others. I don't know when they will design a new edition of the bigger switches. Because if you have a branch, for instance, you a small Catalyst. You don't need a large Catalyst. But whether it's a small or big installation, I recommend Catalyst.

We use this solution for LAN and WAN networking.

We are system integrators, and we provide maintenance services for our clients.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the Virtual LAN.

This technology is completely mature and I don't think anything needs to be changed.

Scaling can be quite costly.

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

We are using the latest version.

It's an extremely stable product.

It's a scalable solution, but at a high cost.

Our clients have large-sized companies.

We have contacted technical support. The support is excellent and they are efficient.

We are using other brands but the volume is very small compared to the Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco has advantages in terms of stability, reliability, and scalability as well.

The initial setup was complex but has since been simplified.

To deploy with one node can take 10 to 15 minutes.

This solution requires long-term maintenance.

The price is in an affordable range and everything is included.

I would advise going with Cisco because they have an outstanding support team.

They can support up to the extent of installation. They have other services as well, such as RMN. 

Your network downtime is minimal, and your business will not suffer in case of any trouble in the network. I would definitely recommend going with Cisco only.

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

We are mainly deploying the tool for client requirements.

The product is convenient to deploy.

The stability must be improved.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

Sometimes, when we do upgrades, the tool goes down. We purchased a new one, but it didn’t go well.

The tool is highly scalable. Our clients are mostly enterprises.

The initial setup is easy. We deploy the tool mostly in the cloud. Someone in our team will be physically connected to the console and give us access to the network. Then, we deploy it remotely. The deployment can be done in half an hour. We connect the key ports, get the network management configurations, and deploy the product.

We’re a service provider. If people find the price to be competitive, they choose Catalyst. Otherwise, they go with other vendors. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We work on level 2 and level 3 switches to connect many branches.

These switches are stable. They work well and are easy to use.

Cisco switches are expensive.

I have been selling this solution for about 10 years.

They are stable.

I have not contacted their support. Another engineer has contacted them. We have our own two people for support.

We also deal with the HP ProCurve switch, but it is not as good in Libya.

It is not complex now because we have CCNA and CCNP engineers. We have two engineers who are certified with Cisco. Overall, we have three people who work with this solution.

We implemented and finished a big project for a company. The company is still working with the same components that we installed. For deployment, I have two people with me, but in our company, we have a big team of 20 people.

They are expensive.

I would recommend these switches to others. Cisco is a good company.

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

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 have the Cisco Catalyst 2940 Series switches. We usually use these switches for connections inside our office. We have a three-story building, so we have quite a number of switches to connect specific departments. These switches are mainly used to share a connection among computers in a specific department. 

They are stable. We haven't had any particular problem with them. 

Their price should be improved. They are a little bit expensive.

We have been using these switches for around five years.

They are stable. We haven't had any problems. There was a time when due to power failures or outages, we lost some switches and had to replace them. Power is very unstable here, and we are experiencing outages due to heat.

In one of the devices that I am using, I notice lights blinking from time to time. I don't know whether it is related to the equipment, but it seems that the connection is not going through. It only occurs from time to time. I am yet to understand the reason behind this. It is not a big problem, and we are able to use it.

Our network doesn't grow so much, and it has more or less the same things. We are a public university, and we have three sites. I am at one of the sites. At this site, we have about 60 to 70 people. We also have our campuses where some of these switches are used. All in all, we have about 1,000 people.

We are setting up a national research and education network for which we have acquired some Cisco Catalyst 9000 Series switches, which are new to me. When we start using these, I would have more to say about what they can achieve in terms of scalability.

We don't have external technical support. Unfortunately, this is not something that works very well in a country like ours. We have to rely on our own technicians. 

We have had the opportunity, although not so extensively, to use MikroTik. In my experience, they are easy to use, and they are cheaper. Our financial department opted for Cisco, but we are satisfied with Cisco. 

It is easy. We haven't had much trouble.

I can do it by myself.

They are a little bit expensive. We are a public institution, so we go through other traders, and sometimes, they put in their own surplus price because it is a government contract. Cisco products are expensive, especially when you compare them to Huawei.

I would surely recommend this solution. We plan to keep using these switches. 

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

LAN switch for both core and access layers. It has performed very well in this area.

The ease of deployment and the support are associated with a reduction in end-user downtime as well as in the operations and maintenance efforts required.

Among the most valuable features are the support and the ecosystem. There is a lot of documentation and information, and many support resources are available.

It would be helpful to have the ability to load new IOS software without performing a reboot, or to be able to perform the reboot without disrupting end-users.

This is a very stable and mature platform with a proven record of reliability.

Catalyst is very a very scalable solution thanks to its Stack mechanism, as well as the modular functionalities of some models.

Cisco TAC support is very reliable and responsive. It has always been considered an industry benchmark among all IT support organizations.

Business requirements were the driver for our switch to Catalyst. We needed an increase in port density and an increase in port speed, among other things.

The most important criterion when selecting a vendor is the quality of the support team for technical issues.

The setup of Catalyst, in general, is straightforward and easily done by following the documentation.

Extreme Networks, Juniper Networks, Dell.

Consider your business requirements and only select the needed functions/features, to avoid over-complex solutions.

I rate Catalyst a nine out of 10 because the product is extremely mature and reliable.