Cisco Enterprise Routers Reviews

I use Cisco routers in my company to provide internet connectivity to all our devices, such as computers and WiFi. Essentially, I use these servers to facilitate internet access for the entire company. HPE is the server we are using in our company.

I am satisfied with the tool overall. Although I haven't used all of its features yet, it's been great for providing internet access to both customers, and employees within the company. I'm looking forward to learning more about the other features and using them in the future.

I don't think I can improve the tool. For that, I would need to learn all of its features and how to use them. But for now, I am satisfied with the tool because it provides me with what I need. In short, I don't have any idea if I want any improvements in the solution.

Sometimes, I find it hard to learn how some features of the router work. So, these are the issues that may arise when a user might not have knowledge about the product.

I have been working with HPE servers since 2019, which adds up to about three to four years. As for Cisco, I have been working with them for two years now, and with Cisco routers specifically, for about one year. I am also working with Cisco Enterprise Routers.

I love all Cisco devices since it has a lot of features, including the ones that are essential to me. Stability-wise, I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The router I am using right now is enough for my needs. There are many features that I would like to use, and I am learning about them. The tool is sufficient for me at present.

The router is the main device in my company. So, everyone who wants to access the internet will go through it. However, I am the only one with access to the router and its features. Thus, all other people have to access the internet through the router as a user without access to its features, and they may not even be aware of the process. They only have access to the internet without the knowledge of how it works. Since I am in the IT section, I have access to all the necessary details.

I have experience with Cisco UCS C-Series, HPE ProLiant DL, and Linux, specifically Cisco and HPE.

I haven't worked with routers from vendors other than Cisco. Even at home, I have a small Cisco router. Nowadays, some people use TP-Link and D-Link, but I feel that Cisco is the best for me. For small companies or small houses, Cisco routers are very good.

I had someone help me with the setup process, which wasn't a complicated process. Although it may seem complicated the first time you go through it, doing it a second time, you may not feel that it is a complicated process.

It was not just the router but the whole network, which means there were other devices also. So, the deployment process took just one month.

I received help from a consultant.

The pricing of Cisco routers is reasonable at times. But, here in my country, it is expensive because we get the product from outside our country, which involves a lot of processes. But, outside my country also, I don't think it is reasonable. Only owing to the features it provides, it is reasonable.

I don't know the amount paid by the ones who purchased the solution a few years ago, but I know that they bought the license.

My advice for the people who want Cisco routers is that I think they have to learn how to use them because there are a lot of features that they can use in the solution. But if they don't know how to use it, then they shouldn't buy it. They have to learn everything about the router so that they can use the very good features of the router. So, they need to get knowledge about the router and its features. Once you know how to use it, it's satisfying.

To understand the router and its features, I usually rely on Google, Cisco's website, and occasionally other websites. I find the documentation on the Cisco website to be great since they know how to explain the features well since the routers are their products. I rate this solution a ten out of ten, at times a nine out of ten, but not lower than that.

There was a need to connect remote offices. They numbered at least 18, which is why we had to deploy routers that also supported SSL and VPNs. We then built this wide area network using MPLS. As a result, we used service providers. They are three MPLS services, and we built an IP-based network for a large area at the time.

I haven't assessed it in that way, they provided us with excellent service. We had very few issues.

I would like to see them improve at least their sales, where they guide their customers on the capabilities of their products. 

Perhaps it's not so much a Cisco problem as it is a system integration problem where they have business partners who come forward. 

I believe they lack uniform training or that it is not enforced, because we found something lacking in designing a solution and then implementing it because, in one or two instances, we thought these guys were clueless.

I would like more training and documentation.

I would like to see the network control section, where we talk about data control and network control, then when we talk about a software-defined network, the support should not be native within routers and even switches. Their software-defined paradigm requires significant improvement.

We have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers since 2014.

It is not the most recent. There is an upgrade cycle that we will begin very soon, beginning next quarter.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are stable.

The issues we had were with the service provider, the internet links, and all or some of the dedicated links, but they were minor because our experience has taught us that if it's a fiber optic backbone deployment, it's pretty sturdy.

However, in our part of the world, the geography we live in, copper wires are still used in some deployments. These can be troublesome.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are quite scalable.

We are leveraging IP everywhere. There is no issue. We can stock up on LAN cards.

Of course, we cannot upgrade the main engine; that requires a product upgrade, which we are considering beginning next quarter.

It's a fairly large company, with around 1,000 people directly benefiting from it. That's just the headquarters; when you factor in the regions and other offices, the total number of people is around 5,000.

It is widely used because it has become our backbone for all IT. We have centrally deployed all of our databases, mail servers, and other systems. It's essentially a continuous deployment architecture.

I would rate the technical support a four out of five.

I have experience with IT service management at the director level. I have never used the product myself, I have been overseeing staff.

I have done a little bit of work in Oracle, Oracle database, and SQL Server, as well as Microsoft, but not IBM.

We have not used System Center SSIS, it was mostly network-centric, and my primary role was in networks rather than service. What I am monitoring is what we are doing at the network level.

SolarWinds was the most frequently used. It has a router family that can be deployed, so we use quite a few of those. Aside from that, we were using an ERP system, and Oracle was the backend there. 

We are primarily using Oracle ERP and then some apps to facilitate our center, which primarily provides advisory services. In order to gain industry insights, we rely more on organizations such as Gartner and others.

We were interested in getting the Point solution at one point; I believe that is what the product was called. I don't recall, but not because we don't run campaigns per se, so we don't really need a CRM system in place. 

We don't because we have a large customer base where we interact with CRM in our current role. Because it is mostly personalized, we use the phone or email.

Integration is something that has always existed, but we only considered it at the ERP level.

I was working on a project where we were doing both pre-implementation and implementation supervision. It was financed by the World Bank. It was in Africa, in a western African country called Ghana, if you're familiar with the name.

We have used McAfee and Semantic as well as other security software. We were also curious about network access control.

We primarily use these drives for storage. Maybe Box is the one we use the most, but we also use box.com and Google Drive to some extent.

We have implemented our own FTP, and we primarily use it with customers.

We don't use Google Hangouts, Google Classroom, or Google Cloud.

They are all based on Linux. There are not many of them. Python is used for front-end programming, and Oracle is used for back-end processing. Oracle has its own, complete with Java.

Oracle Linux, is limited to financials and HR for the ERP portions.

We have been using Red Hat.

For networks, Cisco was everywhere, we used Cisco access control and everything else, including routers and firewalls.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment took six months to a year to complete because the majority of the deployment was done at the headquarters level first, followed by the rollout to the regions once the headquarters deployment was completed. 

The entire project lasted more than a year. It took 12 months to create and get the entire organization connected.

The deployment was done by, a Cisco system integrator.

We have a total staff of approximately 30 people who manage the entire network, including 15 people in the headquarters and the remaining 15 spread across the regions.

The licensing cost is quite reasonable.

They purchased an assortment of items. There was no single vendor. We had problems because there was a mismatch of different vendors, and we had to meet a certain standard. It could have been a variety of other vendors. I wouldn't know what to call them, but one brand that comes to mind is D-Link.

I am running my own consulting company. I don't have a very large setup at this time.

We can easily comply with the industry standards, their hardware is quite robust, and there are a lot of trained resources available in the market to hire. As a result, you are never lost.

I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to secure and separate our network. We use the router to install the internet gateway.

When there is a problem, it hampers the scope of work. So if they could reduce the response time, it'll be helpful to us. In addition, the UI could be more user-friendly.

We have been using this solution for the last two years. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution. Cisco devices are very stable.

It is very scalable. We have two sites, our head office site and our factory site. We have a total of about 1600 users on the factory site. We only require four to five people for maintenance, and the maintenance has different levels, admin, physical and support maintenance. There are three people in admin maintenance and three to four in support and other maintenance.

We have not used any technical support from Cisco.

We used Cisco Router 2911 before this.

There was some complexity in setting up the existing network to the new network. It took almost six months to implement. However, the timeline was impacted by COVID. There were no issues with the product, but the issue was upping the tunnel and upgrading systems.

Our vendor and partner helped us with installation. The vendor did the initial configuration, and now we are taking care of the maintenance.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for building micro-networks and Internet networks for main VPN services, high-speed Internet access, and extending the network of customers.

I have found the most valuable feature of Cisco Enterprise Routers to be the simplicity of the command-line interface, it is very intuitive as to how the commands need to be configured for a specific use case. 

Over time things have changed where Cisco has not invested in improving the orchestration and simplifying it for people who do not want to get into the details. Cisco has not gone into that focus. Technologies such as MPLS and VPN, have become very difficult to use for many service providers. This is where you have the admission of software-defined networks which brought in a lot of simplicity when it comes to routing and functionality.

What Cisco Routers needs to do to improve is what they have already done with the SD-WAN solution. It is a very, elegant solution, but even though it is a pretty comprehensive solution, one of the problems with the Cisco solution is many customers do not use all the features. They must have a category of customer premises equipment, specifically for the managed service providers and enterprise networks that can be much more cost-effective from an IT perspective. The configuration can be simplified at the GUI level. It should be easier because any telecommunication provider only has an enterprise network nowadays. 

When I am running an SD-WAN as an enterprise, I have features that are capable of finding an alternate path when there is latency. I have yet to find a solution to integrate them. For example, if I am a managed services provider for an SD-WAN customer, how do I make sure that this feature is automatically taken care of by the service provider side by monitoring its own option. This managing from the service provider side in the SD-WAN solution does not exist, it is all only static provisioning right now. When you are doing the original provisioning it happens, but dynamically when the network changes due to quirks in the network, how does it actually handle it. If there was this kind of features it would help Cisco to become the best in the process. You need to have a more solution-specific understanding.

The parts management teams have to come up with features that will benefit the service provider and the enterprises if they want to be the best.

I have been working with Cisco Enterprise Routers for approximately 30 years.

The stability and bugs are more related to a Cisco internal issue because when I worked in the Cisco team in research and development, their internal procedures were very complex and they had a very bloated OS software. All those problems have been solved in approximately 2007. They have improved a lot of processes and areas. They brought more modularity into the code and they have strict mechanisms for fixing the software. Earlier the problem was that when they fixed the problem for one router, they had to go and fix the same issue in different code bases. For example, if there was a bug in QoS, Quality of Service, code and it was on a router that was also found to be in all the versions which of many other routers, they will fix on few of them. They will not fix many others because that would cause problems later in the deployment of the solution. This method has backfired a lot for Cisco.

They learned from their mistakes and started modularizing the code, they standardized the quality of service across the platforms and those problems went away. 

Now they have much more modular code and have done a very good job standardizing the CLI. This is what is helping the orchestration because the more complexity you have across different platforms it makes it very difficult for orchestration. You are able to do it but it makes it even worse. They needed big teams to manage the bug fixes and to understand how the bugs were going to be fixed. Now with the tools that are available, they have simplified a lot of the processes. The concept of segment routing and how can it be used for micro-segmentation, are wonderful features.

The lack of talent is the major challenge and is something that is widening. However, orchestration solutions will actually help. The more proficient technical support personnel can focus on the troubleshooting whereas the entry-level personnel can focus on the orchestration part and manage the services. The troubleshooting can be taken care of by the more technologically advanced personnel at level two support and the level three technical support should be in the position to go right down through the levels and be able to see what is going wrong and fix the issue.

There was a time when we had excellent technical support in Cisco. It has been 10 years since I left Cisco and one thing I can say is that over a period of time, the technical support of Cisco diminished. The problems were more related to the internal processes within the system and the hiring processes that were used. When you are hiring people for technical support you cannot just hire somebody based on CCIE or CCNA certification. You need people who are real engineers who understand the protocol at the level of detail that is required at the level of implementation and the software must be understood extremely.

Unfortunately, in CCIE they learn how to pass the exams, but they really do not know how to build real networks. There are people who are very good at networking in configuring but they are extremely bad when it comes to understanding computer architecture, what is error correction memory, how does it affect software performance, and what kind of problems it can bring. They have no idea at all. This causes a problem when attempting to troubleshoot the equipment.

These problems are what Cisco and all others face. Cisco has invested a lot in their teams, but if you have managers who do not know how to recruit the right type of people then you face a lot of challenges. Those working on routers, switches, networks, and their environments must have a good understanding of what an operating system is, what is the computer architecture, what is the architecture of the router, and what it is implemented in the protocol. It is very important to be aware of the tools that are in the customer environment, how is the customer using them, are they using them in the right way, or in the wrong way. These things also must be understood.

Most of the help personnel just focus on the software side of the problem. They are not worried whether the customer is getting the connectivity in the right way or not, you have to be supporting in the right way. When I was in a company called Wipro, which is a Cisco partner, I found that they did not know even know how to handle the information correctly. You feel a lot of challenges because of the way hiring is done. 

I am not sure how they handle new features or functionality nowadays but I used to do technology transfer to help people understand how a particular feature or the new functionality that is developed in the platform was supposed to be working, such as certain setup commands that I have used for configuration, the expected outputs, and some of the basic troubleshooting that was needed.

The prices of Cisco are mostly fair. Cisco is similar to BMW for the networking industry. If you compare it with other vendors, such as Huawei, they cannot match the service. Cisco solution serves as the BMW of the networking industry in the way that the others are trying to live up to those expectations. Cisco is justified in some of the pricing, not all the pricing, if you go to the Cisco website, you can see the detailed documentation.

I am currently working with Nokia and it is very difficult to find where the documentation is on the web. They do not even provide the datasheets, and they are only provided them on request for the equipment. How will a person really appreciate a company when it comes to that kind of solution? I can go to the Cisco website and look at the SD-WAN to see the validated designs, all the information, and understand them just by creating myself an account but not with Nokia. I am even trying to figure out what are the protocols that Nokia will use in their SD-WAN solution. It would be much easier to have documentation to compare the advantage and disadvantages. Cisco's openness in their documentation is one of the most appealing strengths of the company, it really gives you an indication of how open they are. The documents detail how much money they spend on it, and how they are helping the industry from an infrastructure perspective. Additionally, Cisco gives you talented individuals. There are people who are self-learners who will go to the website and look at the documentation, learn, and understand the software to find which functionality has a bug. When it comes to a Nokia, they will only help you if you are a managed service with a contract. Otherwise, you cannot even deploy their equipment, this is not a good practice.

I justify part of the pricing that Cisco has but not the full model. There is a 25 percent price increase over the Nokia and it is justified for what Cisco delivers to its customers. I am calculating not just the pricing for just the routers, but the overall price, including openness and how much support they can handle. They are excellent. If you run a network without software support from Cisco and call technical support they will help. For example, they will indicate the problem exists because you upgraded the software and if you have a contract, you can automatically download the software to fix the problem. This would not be the case with Nokia, you will need them to be involved, they select the managed services, and that makes it extremely difficult for people to afford. 

Cisco is way too expensive for small and medium businesses. They must lower their prices in the lower range equipment. They need to make sure that they do not ignore that market segment because they will lose it for good. They will be gone from the Asian market and they will survive with only those companies which are extending their arms into India and South Asia because of the large companies that are there. They will not be able to penetrate the markets in all small and medium businesses and will not thrive.

I have evaluated Huawei and Nokia solutions. Nokia solutions are pretty good. However, in their software, I have heard from many of my friends, they have some type of secrecy that they follow that is very difficult for me to digest.

It is important for smaller companies to focus on understanding how deployments are done. The learning should be done from the perspective of deployment operations because whether you are an enterprise or a service provider you are buying these routers and offering a service to the internal or external customers as a service provider. You need to understand how these platforms and overall solutions help you to build a network faster and which part of it reduces the cost. Many of the smaller companies do not understand the operational expenses well enough, they will end up doing all kinds of Ad Hoc configurations with half the knowledge, and they will run into problems and it will be expensive.

I rate Cisco Enterprise Routers a six out of ten.

In my company, the tool is used mostly in our branches.

The benefit from the use of the product in my company stems from the fact that it is a tool that is considered to be a leader in the market while offering good support and stability, making it an overall good product.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that the product's overall look and feel is good, making it a user-friendly tool.

The product's pricing is an area that is too fuzzy to deal with, in my opinion, making it an area where improvements are required.

The product's deployment phase can be made slightly better and more intuitive.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for ten to twelve years.

It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Around 110 people, consisting mostly of members of my company's IT team and network administrators, use the solution in my company.

During weekdays or normal days, it is easy to get hold of Cisco's support team, but during holidays or weekends, it becomes challenging and problematic for users to reach the support team. It is important to know that the support offered by Cisco is comparatively better than the support offered by its competitors.

The solution's deployment phase is okay since it is a process that may not seem too easy, but at the same time, one may not experience any hassles.

I rate the product's deployment phase a five out of ten.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Considering the configuration phase that takes time, the solution can be deployed in a time frame between three to four hours to two or three days.

In comparison with other products, I rate the product's ability to provide my company benefits in terms of time and funding at twelve or thirteen, even if the benchmark you provide is ten to the maximum.

I rate the product's price a six or seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is extremely expensive, and ten is very cheap. Apart from the licensing costs attached to the solution, a user has to pay towards the product's RMA and support costs.

My company's support team, consisting of 20 to 25 engineers, deals with the product's upgrades, failover testing, and everything else.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to create a secure connection between IT devices and the ISP network.

The solution allows us to connect our web applications to the systems and enable security control on the ISP network.

The solution has a robust performance and provides essential features for router switching and operations. Also, its technical support team is well-trained, and some hold CCNA certifications.

The solution's price could be better. Also, they could provide combined features for total security, including access points for Wi-Fi. In addition, there needs to be an integration with SD-WAN.

We have been using the solution for more than 30 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution's scalability depends on the type of device.

The solution's technical support services are excellent. 

The solution's initial setup process is easy. Although, it might appear complicated compared to devices based on the graphical interface. An expert can deploy it in 30 minutes to an hour. At the same time, an end user might take a day to complete the process.

We received technical assistance from the solution's distributors and resellers.

The solution is expensive.

The solution is very stable compared to other products.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are used when you have networks with multiple branch offices connecting to a single point. 

Cisco support is the most valuable aspect because most technicians in the industry understand how to interface with a Cisco product. When we contact support, we know we'll probably get the answer whether we have to escalate the request to a new engineer or not. 

The cost is the biggest drawback of Cisco products. They say you'll never get fired for buying Cisco, but it's going to cost you. 

Cisco Enterprise Routers are highly stable. You can usually set them up and forget about them. 

Cisco Enterprise Routers are highly scalable. We can upgrade to a higher appliance depending on our needs and bandwidth. 

I rate Cisco Enterprise Routers nine out of 10 overall. They're reliable, scalable, and have the background support any enterprise solution requires.

The most valuable feature is the command prompt, which is very user-friendly.

There have been multiple issues when updating iOS to Cisco routers. 

I've been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for four years.

The stability of Cisco Routers is fine, and their performance is good.

Cisco Routers are very scalable.

The initial setup was of medium difficulty.

Cisco's prices could be cheaper.

I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers as ten out of ten.