Cisco DNA Center Reviews

We use Cisco DNA Center for management. You can configure any device, and if you put the device without configurations, you can start to configure it through Cisco DNA Center. For example: if you get a new Cisco switch, and you have other Cisco switches configured, you can plug in the new switch, copy the configuration, make the changes, and make the template, or you can use an existing template and just upload it to the device.

What I found most valuable in Cisco DNA Center is the ability to manage any device through it, because the infrastructure is for Cisco, and we have Cisco routers and Cisco switches.

In terms of areas for improvement in Cisco DNA Center, we don't use the product on 80% to 100% of its capacity, because our infrastructure is a small one. For us, it's enough. We have report capabilities, and other capabilities that we need are configured on the solution. If there is an expansion for any Cisco solution, we can integrate it with Cisco DNA Center, for example: with ISE, so we're fine.

What could be improved is the licensing cost of Cisco DNA Center. It's a little bit expensive.

I've been using Cisco DNA Center for the last six months.

In terms of the stability of Cisco DNA Center, we had a few bugs, but we managed to overcome them. For example: there were times we needed to reboot the device because it was not connecting.

How scalable Cisco DNA Center is would depend on the license you get. If you need more devices, you can always buy more licenses, or expand your current license.

There was no need for us to contact technical support, because we're not using Cisco DNA Center 100%. Our infrastructure is small, so we're just using the solution to reduce staff.

The initial setup for Cisco DNA Center was straightforward. On a scale between one and five where one is the worst and five is the best, I'm scoring the setup a four. Anyone could do it.

Licensing for Cisco DNA Center is a little bit expensive, just like any Cisco solution. Its cost could still be improved.

Cisco DNA Center is deployed on-premises. There is a link for the cloud because you need to have internet connection, but the data stays on-premises.

The advice I would give to other people who want to use Cisco DNA Center is to go for it, particularly if they have Cisco infrastructure, though these days it's really hard to do that because integration could be an issue. If they have other Cisco products they use in their infrastructure, it'll be a plus, so they should use Cisco DNA Center.

I'm rating Cisco DNA Center eight out of ten.

I used Cisco DNA Center for LAN automation for the DnaC.

I like that we can easily configure any new hardware. It's also easy to deploy and easy to troubleshoot.

Technical support could be better. The price could be better, and it could be more stable.

I used Cisco DNA Center for about a year while working with two organizations on a freelance basis.

Cisco DNA Center could be more stable.

The scalability of Cisco DNA Center is okay.

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

Technical support is also struggling because it's a new product. They are not hundred percent sure about it. For example, it took them one week to fine-tune this appliance with the help of Cisco tech support.

Neutral

The initial setup isn't straightforward. It was a painful deployment. We have a couple of tickets with Cisco tags to be deployed because this is an unstable product. This is because it's tough to integrate with Cisco ISE which was running on the VM appliance, it was excruciating. Another common issue is that the end-use could not detect an IP address or authenticate it after we integrated it, on the branch side we are using Cisco Catalyst 9500/9300/9200 Series Switches.

The challenging part is that it has to be deployed on a standard load and integrated with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE). I'm not sure why they have used Cisco ISE for authentication. It should be deployed and not integrated.

I implemented this solution.

The price could be better. It's a very expensive tool.

I would tell potential users not to buy Cisco DNA Center as it's a considerable expense that isn't worthwhile.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco DNA Center a seven.

We use this solution for network assurance and automation, network segmentation with ISE integration, and LAN automation deploying new devices out into the switching estate.

This was for a TSA project that we were doing for a client.

It relieved some of the operational burdens on the IT staff. It makes troubleshooting a lot of issues much quicker from a central single pane of glass, whether it's a switch issue or authentication issue with ISE, or a wireless connectivity issue. 

DNA center is very capable of being able to address well, identify the issue, suggest remediation steps, run remediation, run commands against a switch to check the proper connectivity for example, and also address all our remediation steps that the IT person could take.

Rather than having to log into the individual switch DNA center, you can basically run your commands, run your troubleshooting, all from DNA and attempt to remediate the problem.

I think that their LAN automation is a very good feature. It takes advantage of the plug-and-play capability from the catalyst switches. 

We'll do a zero-day configuration, which is a good feature. 

Also, wired and wireless assurance, client health, and network health are valuable, especially with the wireless sensors deployed. It can give you a good idea of what's going on in the RF environments.

The template feature is really good, you have free templates and then associate those templates to a tag, tag a device with a certain role, and just program devices that way rapidly.

It's pretty robust. The wireless assurance and telemetry, as well as the security and the segmentation capabilities, are outstanding.

They deploy rapidly. They are scalable throughout the entire organization. With just a few clicks, it really removes a lot of the human error that you would normally have with access control lists.

It takes a lot of the human element out of configuration.

You can create VRS and VNS and deploy those system-wide, application policies with a few clicks and segmentation with a few clicks.

With their provisioning status, if there's a failure in provisioning or in some type of task that DNA is trying to push out to a switch or whatever device, sometimes the task status errors or the provision errors are a little bit big. 

I think they could provide a little more detail to someone when a task fails. It's an error code that tells you that this task has failed, but it doesn't get too deep into why it failed. The task failure reporting or provisioning failure reporting could be a little bit better in the UI, with more information given to the user.

From the CLI you can get much more information from MagLevs.

Also, the UI could use a little bit of improvement. I know that things have gotten a lot better in version 2, but I haven't worked with version 2 yet.

A feature that I would like to have seen is the true debt disaster recovery, which is now available in the 2.2.1 version.

More detailed information would be helpful, but you can get that information from the CLI but not everyone is comfortable working in the Linux shell.

I have been using Cisco DNA Center for approximately two years.

The last version that I worked with was Version 1.3.3.6.

Currently, the latest is version 2.X.

It is very stable. I would rate the stability an 8.5 out of 10. 

We had an issue with the DNA center database. 

With the DNA center, you have to be a little patient. 

We may have been trying to ask it to do too much at one time, and it created a problem with the database that escalated to the business unit to get cleaned up.

That was really not so much an issue with the DNA sensors, it was because we had spooled up a lot of tasks and you have to be a little patient with DNA.

My impression of the scalability is all positive. 

It's highly scalable. DNA itself is deployed as either a single node or a three-node cluster.

We were deploying it in a single node state, but my impression of it is quite positive. I like it a lot.

DNAC itself is an orchestrator and its collecting audit assurance, and telemetry. The entire IT staff of the end organization will be using the DNA center. It's probably a staff of 15 to 20 people. 

In terms of endpoint end-users, that DNA is collecting assurance and telemetry from several thousand. It's being fully utilized.

I have had a fair amount of interaction with technical support. I would rate them outstanding. Their DNA team is solid.

I didn't use any other solution previously.

Standing up the DNAC appliance itself is pretty straightforward.

The deployment was a phased approach. We did three DNAC appliances across three regions globally. 

To stand up the appliance itself doesn't take long at all. It takes a few hours, but it was a phased migration strategy, one site at a time over a period of several months, we would do one or two site migrations a week.

There were an existing network infrastructure and a new network infrastructure that we were standing up in parallel to the old and then cutting it over on a weekend.

We have a handful of people who have access to the regional appliance made up of network admins and help desk personnel.

Once it's deployed and built out, it runs on its own. There is not much to with it unless you need to do a package or a software upgrade for the appliance itself.

There is no further deployment unless they are going to stand up a new site and integrate that into the DNA architecture. As it is now, everything is already up, which is what we did.

We did the deployment, the integration, and the site migration from start to finish. Then we do a low-level design and handover and workshops.

We have approximately 10 users that would have some type of operational role in DNA.

It's being highly utilized and leveraged in the organization.

We did not use a consultant or an integrator. I completed it myself. We are Cisco Partners.

This is taken care of before I am involved. It's handled by our presales engineer, and I work on the project delivery.

I do know that Cisco does offer some really good promotions for DNA Center to bring the costs down. But again, I don't really know the details of those promotions. I just hear about them and I know they're out there, but I don't have specifics on that.

Cisco DNA does not have a Cloud solution. It's an on-premises appliance.

They may stand up if they bring in another heritage. They may have some heritage or legacy sites that they may bring over to the new network.

We are multi-national. Our organization is based in London, New York, and Sydney. Our clients are all multi-national global clients.

We do have some regional clients as well, but we are well-positioned to serve multi-nationals across three regions.

My advice is to read the release notes thoroughly. Understand how to deploy, in a single or three-node cluster. Most importantly be aware of release notes and read the documentation.

Do your homework, read the manual, it's there for a reason.

Be patient when standing up a new fabric site. Don't do too many tasks at one time.

The biggest lesson that I have learned is to be patient. When you have a series of tasks that you need to do, don't initiate too many at one time, initiate three or four, allow those to finish, and then continue on.

From when I first started working with DNA, it's come a very long way.

From a programmability standpoint, it really is quite solid. I really like the LAN automation capabilities.

In terms of software-defined networking, I think it's an outstanding product. I would rate Cisco DNA Center a nine out of ten.

We use the solution’s capabilities to the maximum.

The product gives a consolidated view. It has good tools for creating standard templates. It is good for basic troubleshooting.

The product doesn’t have good monitoring capabilities. It should be improved. The data has a lot of inconsistencies. We cannot trust it or rely on it. The solution has a lot of bugs in assurance and provisioning. Sometimes, in the inventory, the devices are out of sync. The AI features are very basic.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The product is not stable. I rate the stability a five out of ten.

The tool is scalable. If we want to scale it, it will be expensive. There should be a good ratio between scalability and cost. Our clients are medium and large enterprises.

The technical support is not excellent, but it is good. If we seek information that is not in the public documentation, then we don't get answers from Cisco TAC. The support could be improved. If we are unsure about the behavior of a feature or application, we should get proper documentation from Cisco on how the feature should work.

Neutral

The deployment is easy after we get the IOS image. However, when compared to cloud-hosted solutions, the process requires manual work. We have to deploy it manually. If everything is ready, it takes us a full day to deploy the tool. It takes one week to deploy it if we have to prepare the network and get the IOS image.

One engineer is enough to deploy the tool. Maintenance is not super easy. The upgrades are time-consuming. The features do not work as they're supposed to sometimes. If there are errors, we have to contact Cisco TAC.

The solution is expensive. There is a recurring license fee that has to be paid annually. There is also a one-time cost for the appliance, which is also expensive.

We are partners with Cisco. People wanting to use the product must compare it with other tools and choose accordingly. Overall, I rate the product a six out of ten.

We use this solution for network architecture and data implementation. I was working on a project, designing a city. We used Cisco DNA Center as the software-defined solution for this city.

The most valuable features were the monitoring, maintenance, and configuration. It was easy to work with and allowed a lot of engineers to connect. Before it, there were a lot of problems. However, when the problems were solved, it allowed full automation and easy monitoring and handling. Also, it makes patching and upgrading to the newest version easier.

They can improve the network visibility. Licensing and its maintenance are also needed.

We are trying to reduce the company's and employees' assets and give it extra features. We are also separating the wireless SSI test network and trying to manage all the company properties through it.

I have been working with Cisco DNA for the last year.

It is a stable solution. 

It is easily scalable in Mastercard. We are designated in card distribution and access the claim assistance. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

We didn't ask for any support from Cisco because our team had rich experience in working with Cisco's products. We already have experience with Cisco Prime before using DNA solutions.

The setup was easy. The catalytic switches are mostly related to the CNA and server management. It is mostly done in two parts. While we are implementing the solution, we just need to create the configuration template. While updating the solution, we need to change the business management and push the configuration to the wireless switches. We can also access the same by buying a console connection.

The deployment took almost three months. But before it is implemented, the arching and design take almost six months.

The solution is a little bit expensive but depends a lot on the customer's usage. If you use it in the right place, you can easily pay for it. 

My advice is to categorize before implementing the DNA cluster. If the architecture is not good enough, you might face some issues with the transceiver. It might not be compatible with other solutions.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I like the visibility, instant build, network, policies, and the ability to control access. I also like that you can visualize your whole network.

Cisco could improve the security side of their solutions.

We have been using this solution since 2005.

It's definitely stable.

It's definitely scalable.

The initial setup can be easy depending on the knowledge you have.

It takes one or two people to maintain the solution. However, it depends on the client and the type of service required. 

The licensing cost for Cisco DNA Center is not more than that of other solutions.

If I were to give pricing a score from one to five, I would give it a score between three and four.

We are happy with this solution; we cannot design data center switches without Cisco DNA.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco DNA Center at nine.

We deploy the Cisco DNA Center through Cisco Prime Migration, and we use Cisco DNA Center to monitor all the wired connections, endpoints, and switches such as access switches, data center switches, and routers. We also manage the wireless access points through the Cisco DNA Center.

We get reports on availability, health, manageability, logs, and critical errors. We monitor and maintain all the network devices using the solution.

We deploy DNAC for customers who want to manage and monitor all their Cisco Advantage licensed network devices. 

The best feature of Cisco DNA Center is the visibility page, which is unavailable in Cisco Prime. You can see everything on a single plane of glass on the dashboard, and you don't have to be a technical person to view different data and statistics. For example, you can see the issue alarms, errors, topology, and availability. So the tool gives you good visibility into all that's happening within your network infra. It also provides visibility into your computing environment. Application and performance analytics in huge detail is available in the DNA center.

The reporting is fantastic in both Cisco Prime and Cisco DNA Center, so I rate that feature a nine out of ten. My company migrated clients to the Cisco DNA Center, and the reporting is incredible.

Fresh deployments is not easy to set.

During single-node deployment, you must configure the node as if it is in a cluster.

I've been using Cisco DNA Center for two years now.

Cisco DNA Center is a very stable tool.

The solution is very scalable.

We have had a very great TAC support experience on Cisco DNA center.

Positive

We previously used Cisco Prime. DNAC is much more intuitive and better.

The initial setup for Cisco DNA Center is more complicated compared to Cisco Prime.

We had an in-house deployment.

My company uses Cisco DNA Center.

I'd tell anyone planning to use Cisco DNA Center to use it, especially when you have Cisco products or devices, such as wireless, security, and voice. Cisco DNA Center is the best product for  network monitoring and management. You can use Cisco Prime, but I prefer Cisco DNA Center because the visibility available there. You can see almost all information on a single page of the dashboard. If you have a Cisco environment, it's best to go for Cisco DNA Center.

I would give Cisco DNA Center an eight out of ten overall.

The solution is mainly used for setting up SPN or intent-based networking for the customers.

In day-to-day operations, especially post-pandemic, the majority of our customers have to work from anywhere. It's not just work from home, it's work from anywhere. Due to this work from anywhere concept, the traditional silos of a network for the data center architecture, and managing everything from anywhere, and having that single integrated dashboard for each and every activity while being able to correlate those activities in line with a business objective, has been very well addressed by Cisco DNA.

The solution's most valuable aspect is its simplicity and the complete automation of the network workflow, which we can use that correlate with the business. It's not only limited to STXs or a data center. It completes everything, which really helps us.

If a user is comfortable with Cisco technology, the initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

Cisco is extremely reliable.

The solution has the capability to scale. 

Technical support is always excellent.

The architecture should not be limited only to the USXC as a platform. Let's say if I'm referring to the Catalyst 1000 Series or an MB Series of an SG or FX. Due to the fact that there are mid-market and commercial customers who are using such kinds of product lines apart from the Catalyst 9000 or Cisco UCS architecture, they should all come under a single pane of glass. Any new product should be added right from Cisco itself.

The network automation should not be limited only to Cisco, as there may be customers who are using Palo Alto firewalls, or they might be using Ruckus for wireless. There has to be some sort of integration with a third party. 

The integration of Cisco DNA with a couple of leading CRMs or ticketing solutions would be ideal. 

The solution can be quite pricey.

We've been dealing with the solution for three to four years or so.

Stability is never an issue with Cisco. It's reliable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Scalability isn't really an issue. However, it all depends on the version or the flavor that you are selecting. We don't see a challenge. All options are available to us.

The technical support on offer from Cisco is always excellent. it would rate them at a ten out of ten. they are helpful and responsive.

We are using Cisco DNA as well as Ansible as a platform. We don't have that much experience working on other product lines. While Cisco is on the cloud, Ansible is on-premises.

If the engineer is good enough to understand the Cisco terminology, and if they have past experience working with Cisco, I don't see a challenge working with Cisco DNA as a platform.

Deployment may take maybe five to seven working days. However, the real process is all about fine-tuning. It's a continuous improvement process as we need to align DNA with the business objectives. It's not that product where we actually talk to the customer on a technicality. It is more about how best we can ensure the business outcome via the automation tool. There is always lots of engagement that happens at the customer experience level. That's the reason it takes some more time to find units.

The pricing is quite expensive. It'd rate it at a two out of ten in terms of affordability.

We have customers who would like to deploy DN architecture, however, DN architecture requires a DNF appliance. For the mid-market customer who is investing hardly a few thousand dollars, if they have to deploy an appliance, it is very costly. Ideally, to address the need of SMB or mid-market customers, Cisco should offer something on a cloud basis where it could be more affordable. 

My feedback to the Cisco product team is that technology is fantastic. There are no issues. The only thing is that they have to make the technology at an affordable price point, which should be affordable to SMBs and not just enterprises. Enterprises don't mind spending money. However, for mid-market and commercials, working out a pricing model which is more on an OPEX base rather than on a CAPEX base would be ideal.

We are a system integrator and we are providing network automation solutions and services to our customers. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten. It's quite good, however, it's not ideal for smaller organizations as it's cost-prohibitive.

This solution is best for customers who are end-to-end, Cisco customers. For the customers who have a heterogeneous environment where security comes from let's say CrowdStrike or Palo Alto or Ruckus we would suggest that a customer goes with Ansible. Cisco has limitations in terms of integration and automation when working with solutions outside the Cisco family. Some sort of API interface has to be available.