Cisco Enterprise Routers Reviews

We use this solution primarily for branch connectivity for our customers.

It is easy to use and is very solid.

The solution could be priced better because sometimes it is expensive.

We have been using this solution for 18 years and we currently use version 16.6.

The product is very stable.

The product is very scalable.

Our experience with customer service and support has been very good.

The initial setup was straightforward and was completed in one day.

We recommend using smart licensing with this product because of the positive experience we have had with it.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

The primary use for this solution is to connect branch networks to the head office.

The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration. 

Cisco could improve by reducing the delays in receiving physical devices.

I've been working with Cisco Enterprise Routers for three to four years.

This is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable as we can fulfill our requirements by adding modules.

Cisco's technical support is very good.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward and took between three to four weeks.

We get a good ROI from this solution because the failure rate is very low, which means customers are happy with the lack of maintenance required.

The cost of this solution is very low compared to other products.

I would give Cisco Enterprise Routers a rating of ten out of ten.

We use Cisco Enterprise Routers for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), internet services, and IP transfers. We use it mainly for an internet gateway. 

The quality is good. Cisco Enterprise Routers are stable and more reliable.

It would be better if Cisco had a User Interface (UI) that we could configure from a web browser. Right now, we only have a Graphical User Interface (GUI). I would like to see a new UI with a dashboard for configuration in the next release.

I have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for about five years.

Cisco Enterprise Routers has been stable for us.

Cisco Enterprise Routers are scalable. It's good. We have an average number of users at our organization, about 100.

We rarely use their technical support, but it's good. 

The initial setup is quite simple. We have two people maintaining this solution.

We evaluated MikroTik before choosing Cisco Enterprise Routers. I think Cisco Enterprise Routers are more stable, and the reliability is better.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Enterprise Routers an eight.

Cisco Routers have the native translation that we need for a couple of extra networks. They also provide firewall protection for our system.

Cisco Routers are quite robust. They don't malfunction, and we've had no complaints so far.

I would like it if Cisco Routers had a longer lifecycle. That's what we need. We don't want to renew or implement a new model. One model should be available for at least five years. This seems impossible nowadays.

I think we first installed the Enterprise Routers about three years ago, but now they're reaching the end of their lifecycle, so we'll likely switch.

Cisco Routers are a stable solution.

Cisco Routers are scalable enough for our needs. We only have a couple of networks we need to connect and 200 customers.

So far I haven't had any issues. Support provides us with all the latest patches and updates. 

We prepare everything here in the factory and the site where our systems are. Then we set up a new IP address when needed. The time required for deployment depends on the person and site. Typically, if it's a competent person, it's a half-hour job with verification and testing.

Cisco Routers are quite affordable. The price is not the problem. It's the availability and the lifecycle. 

I'm currently looking at Netgear for a replacement solution and some other candidates. We will evaluate and verify.

We perform immigration checks in Pakistan. We have around 26 distributed check posts across Pakistan. We need network links to collect the data, implement the stop list, and other immigration-related data.

For immigration, we use an MIS system that helps the immigration personnel. This requires a network infrastructure at its core. We need to ensure the availability of data and to ensure data security.  round 90 to 95 people use it within our organization.

In itself, Cisco is a reliable product and does not require any major changes. We have utilized Cisco for around 15 years, and in that time, there has hardly been any incident to my knowledge that a router suddenly became faulty, or started to malfunction. Cisco is an excellent and very comprehensive product, and we have no issues with that.

It's not really about how Cisco can be improved, but the utilities around it. For example, Fortinet has a good firewall and useful auditing tools with it. It also allows establishing centralize infrastructure, just by installing a Fortinet client software, VPN software, at the client end. However, we know that Cisco is also providing such a product in the name of AnyConnect. It is a concern over the cost aspect because of the budget we have available, Fortinet is much cheaper than the Cisco product, including the functionalities it provides. Cisco routers are an expensive product. Regarding Cisco usage in the future, it depends upon the increase in the immigration checkpoints. If our government decided to open 10 more immigration checkpoints, and other sites related to those, it would require more procuring of hardware, including the number of routers to support this. 

We have been utilizing Cisco routers and switches, since 2004. We are a police organization in Pakistan.

We still use the Cisco router 1721 Modular Access Router, which is now obsolete but still works. It is very stable. We have some very old, like 16, 17 years, old models. We have been using Cisco for around 15, or 16 years. We are satisfied with Cisco. 

It's highly scalable. There should always be provision for scalability, as we procure many routers with modular capability. For example, we know that modular routers are capable of extension via WAN interfaces and other interfaces.

We are very much satisfied with Cisco technical support.

Some companies provide initial licenses very cheaply, as do Cisco, but when you want to renew or expand something, the licensing becomes expensive. 

The network team proposes that we might utilize Fortinet instead of Cisco in the future. There is no problem with Cisco, but this is when we might move towards Fortinet because Fortinet can provide these things that are very much cheaper than Cisco, including additional resources.

I would rate cisco 9 out of 10. Cisco is the network equipment leader. It introduces new features; it's the trend maker. The trade-off is cost. Cisco is highly recommended, subject to the availability of funds. It's all about the resources you have and how much you want to invest. We are the customer. However, we are also studying Fortinet and its comparisons and things like those to finalize the procurement process.

We primarily use the routers for internet and wire connection.

The routing feature is the solution's most valuable aspect. 

The solution is more flexible in configuration and in deployment. The deployment is very easy.

Currently, we use the 4000 series of the solution, however, there were issues with the 1900 series.

The solution needs to offer some security features in a future release.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. In our company, we have about 10,000 users. We don't plan to increase usage right now.

Technical support is excellent. I'd rate them ten out of ten.

We previously used, and still use Juniper. We use both Juniper and Cisco within our organization; we haven't replaced one with the other.

The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment takes about two hours.

Our strategy was to have both high and low-level information in regard to the configuration. We usually have it in our script and we can use this information to assist us with deployment.

You require about two people for deployment and maintenance of the solution.

In most cases, I handle the implementation myself. However, in some cases, we used system integrators due to the nature of the contract involved.

There's a yearly licensing agreement. You can add more features at an additional cost if you need to.

We're mostly using the 4000 series of the solution.

In terms of advice, I'd say users need to be clear about customer requirements to avoid overpaying for features they don't need. They should take care to select the proper router type and use the proper license. For deployment, they need a high level of understanding, for the implementation and configuration. They need to be prepared for all scenarios to be network ready. Something might turn off, for example, so they need to be prepared for those instances in order to properly handle them.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I use the solution as an administrator and have experience with VPNs.

The support is very good.

We have found the technology to be excellent. It provides a lot of services.

The documentation provided by Cisco is very good. If we run into any issues, we know we can get help or figure things out via documentation or support.

It's stable and reliable.

The setup is easy.

The solution can scale. 

When we buy new hardware, since we are in Latin America, we have a very long wait in terms of getting the devices. We might wait six to eight months for delivery once we buy it. 

I've been using the solution for over ten years. 

Cisco is very stable. I'd rate them nine out of ten. They are reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is scalable. I'd rate the scalability eight out of ten. 

The support is great and they also have very good documentation. If we need help, it's no trouble finding an answer. That said, I have had a few cases that lasted a bit longer than expected. 

Positive

The setup is pretty straightforward. I'd rate it eight out of ten. The process is very simple. 

The pricing is pretty high. I'd rate it six out of ten as it can be very expensive for some appliances compared to the competition. 

We are Cisco customers. 

As long as you have the certifications and training, Cisco is very easy to configure and operate. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I've very happy with Cisco.

Something I like about the solution is all the options it offers and ways it can be configured. I can do things with ease and find the relevant documentation to assist me. I believe that the reason the company chose to go with Cisco products is because they offer everything needed. 

While scalability is available, it must be paid for. The licensing and price could be improved as the equipment purchased may come with very basic commands that require the consumer to pay for a more expensive license for a greater array of functions. The licensing policy can sometimes be very complicated. 

All other aspects of the solution are fine, as in the past it was only possible to use certain commands to configure the solution, but now there is also the option of using a graphical interface. 

We have been using Cisco Enterprise Routers for around 10 years.

The solution is very stable. 

While scalability is available, this option costs money. 

We do not have experience with technical support for the simple reason that we did not purchase it. As such, we must rely on ourselves for this or read the relevant documentation.