Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

 Cisco Ethernet Switches are used for directing network traffic.

One of the most valuable aspects of Cisco Ethernet Switches is many engineers can work on the equipment. You can find qualified engineers that can configure Cisco equipment more than any other networking equipment.

The ease of use and features sets are very good in Cisco Ethernet Switches.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately 20 years.

The stability of Cisco Ethernet Switches is very good.

The support from Cisco is great. We have trained engineers working and when we need to speak to the technical support of Cisco, it is only because we see there are some errors in the software that we cannot solve ourselves. 

I would rate the support from Cisco Ethernet Switches a four out of five.

The implementation of Cisco Ethernet Switches is a straightforward process.  We're a partner for Cisco via the machine-building program, we integrate ourselves together with those solutions.

I would rate the implementation process of Cisco Ethernet Switches a four out of five.

They have changed over the years and now you need to purchase a three-year obligatory license and then after three years, you are free to use it or not. The model is a bit difficult for customers. This is why we have been shifting away from Cisco equipment.

The price of hardware replacements can be expensive.

I would rate the price of Cisco Ethernet Switches a two out of five.

When we compare Cisco Ethernet Switches to other solutions it comes down to what you need to purchase besides the hardware. Cisco Ethernet Switches' main issue is not with the hardware, but with the software and support that might not be needed.

My advice to others looking to purchases Cisco Ethernet Switches is you pay perhaps a little bit more on the equipment, but there are available engineers to help with the programming, set up, and implementation of the switches. This makes it worthwhile to choose Cisco. If you perhaps have cheap equipment, but if you don't have the people that know how to configure it, do troubleshooting, or analysis, you cannot move forward. 

The equipment might be more expensive, but when you take total ownership of the configuration, maintenance, and analysis, then it's a large benefit. Sometimes customers see only the first cost of the switches and don't look any further. This is a weak point of Cisco.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches an eight out of ten.

The use cases that we have delivered to our customers include for hotel enterprises, government organizations, even military locations. This includes access switches and also distribution switches - perhaps for some organizations in call and data centers, as well.

The features that I have found most valuable are the core reliability and the switching group. All the features are very generic switching features with high reliability. That is the main key point I can highlight.

Feature-wise, almost all the features are there, but an improvement would be to change their market intention. Almost all the Cisco switches are now coming with a license called DNA. D for Delta, N for number and A for apple. That feature is required, he must purchase it and it is a mandatory thing that has been introduced. This is not matching with the Asian market, because let's say you are purchasing a vehicle and you don't want to have a reverse camera, right? But if the manufacturer is forced, fully telling you that you definitely should buy it, this is not fair in that way. DNA licenses, in most cases, are not required, but it should be told to the customers and added to the quotation, because we cannot remove it. This is not matching or suitable for the Asian market. It is not a requirement of the customer and it is forcefully added by the vendor. It's just a license, which you have to purchase for one year or three years, and it will never be used in some cases. In some cases, some specific customers may require that there should be the option to add it. But if it is not required by the customer, it should be optional.

In terms of what I would like to see in the next release, it would be good if they could introduce a switch which can work on cloud and on a local deployment. Maybe the same switch will work. Because some switches are only working alone with local deployments, and some switches are working with cloud based environments. So if the same switch could work on both cloud and from its node, that will be great.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for probably six to seven years.

I'm an integrator. We are using the latest version. I'm doing the designing and selling. I'm selling the latest version of these switches.

Cisco Ethernet Switches have the best stability.

Scalability in the sense varies with switching. Some switches are fixed, which we cannot expand with the design, but some switches are those you can expand. It's basically the design. So scalability is good.

They have great, great technical support from 100 miles to 200 miles.

Initial setup is straightforward to complete. It is very user friendly for the engineer to configure the deploy.

Implementation time depends, but in general, if it is a basic pre-plan implementation, it'll take only a few hours to configure and complete the installation. Maybe one or two hours, also we can complete it if it is a pre-plan, simple deployment. If it is a complex kind of networking fast structure, it'll depend on the solution and the configuration.

It also depends on the solution. If it is one switch, just one one engineer can deploy it. If it is two switches, also one engineer can, but if it is a complex network, it depends on how many switches and how complex it is. Basically, for switch one you can put only one engineer and that also can be done using a technician level person and by remote logging or you can manage it with over the phone instruction.

Cisco is the leader of networking and I would recommend it for anyone.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches a 10.

On-premises

Generally, we use the product just to switch traffic.

They just work. Their reliability has been great for our organization.

We just need them to run. There's not any feature that we sought out and we bought them. We bought them due to the fact that we needed switching capabilities and Cisco is pretty reliable.

The solution can scale.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

They can make the licensing model a little easier. I know they've made some recent changes, it's a little confusing. It's more complicated than it once was.

I've been using Cisco switches for 20 years. It's been a very long time.

The solution is quite stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

They're doing the job fine. We have upgraded them when we needed to. We can scale as necessary.

I can't speak to how many users are currently on our switches.

Tech support has always been good. They are helpful and responsive. I'm quite satisfied with their level of service.

We also use Aruba switches and Dell PowerConnect.

The implementation process has a moderate level of difficulty. It's not straightforward or complex; it's somewhere in the middle. Sometimes they change the iOS around, and that lends itself to a bit of complexity. You have to work on updating items.

There were a couple of versions early on where we buy a different model switch and the operating system was different, with different commands and stuff.

We didn't really have a specific implementation strategy.

Initially, some of the switches took about an hour to implement.

I take care of the maintenance aspects of the product. You don't need a lot of people to do it.

Occasionally, we've gotten outside help when we've needed it, however, most of the time I take care of that myself.

When we have gotten outside help, the experience has always been positive.

I haven't specifically witnessed any ROI while using this solution.

The licensing model is difficult to understand.

We get the SMARTnet and one of the switches has that Cisco ONE licensing. It's probably running about $12,000 a year right now. There aren't any add-on costs on top of that that I am aware of.

We're just customers and end-users.

We've had several versions over the years, mostly Catalyst switches.

It's just a really solid product. I'd give the product a rating of eight out of ten as they are really good switches.

On-premises

Cisco is our backbone. This includes switches, main office, links - all Cisco. For the one between branches, we have Riverbed to speed it up. For internet analytics, we have Palo Alto, Fortinet Security. For application delivery, Citrix. Database, Microsoft SQL, and Oracle. We also have business tools and developer bots with Oracle. That is a lot of products!

We keep Cisco for normal switches for corrective flows and the data center. But they are not so good with the firewall so we use Palo Alto and FortiGate. 

In terms of the most valuable feature, I would say the user interface. We also have Citrix XenApp for the remote service. And Exchange and other Microsoft solutions.

We have other software for software control, for users and help desk. For security, we have RSA Netwitness and Netwitness Security Analytics,

We are only using Cisco for switches and for the IP telephony call center. 

It needs to be manageable, easy, and fast with Windows and other GUIs. They must improve their interface and stability.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches since 1997.

Yes, it is stable. That's why we've stuck with it. It's very stable.

The IT department is more than 55 people. But the server team has three teams of four people. The security team, four people. Database team, five people. We have one supervisor, the head of the team, and two or three under him for his team. I am the head of the security team and the infrastructure team, for servers, switches, and security. So I can tell you that it takes five to seven people to handle Cisco and the security.

In terms of scalability, it is scalable. With Cisco we have built-in stacks and stackable switches. And it has a stackable fiber from the main office to the Catalyst and the Nexus switch.

The problem with customer support is that they give you beginners. We need the experts after the first, second, or third call. Only after a week do you get the expert after you explain and complain about it.

We are the Qatar government authority. So with Cisco, we are dealing with all types of gateways. Cisco is in Kuwait. Many times when we are building something with Cisco we design the infrastructure, everything. Then we go to the Cisco dealers. Because this is our strategy, we work with Cisco directly. With the firewall, I work with Palo Alto or FortiGate or any other brand. Who will give good support, good installation? The solution for installation will be provided and approved by the center itself. That is our strategy. We are happy with this. Before we develop a solution, we sit down directly with the vendor.

Our IP telephony is all Cisco. I would consider another data component.

Cisco is very good and stable. But the problem is that it is costly. It's a very good service but it would be costly for small companies. They should go for lower-end, cheaper switches. Because we are the government, we are stuck with Cisco. But the small and medium-sized businesses must go lower, such as with Huawei or another brand.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a nine.

The main problem is the support in the Middle East. This is a problem for all products, not just Cisco. When you contact support, they don't give you the expert at first, they give you the beginner. Only after going around in a circle do they give you experts. Why don't they just give the expert from the beginning?

We use Cisco as a business switch on a small network of about 30 users. We use it for internet sharing, as centralized management for the network and active directories, as a domain controller, and for file sharing.

This product provides us with stable security and configurable VLAN management.

The most valuable part of this solution for us VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network), MAC authentication and security.

For Cisco, the interface between fiscal small business switches and the Cisco Catalyst or Enterprise switch is a little bit different. So, I needed to take some time to understand how this will impact the network if we plan to scale it in the future and to learn the different interfaces. I think it would be better for Cisco to unify the interfaces between their products. It might make it easier for users to use different models concurrently as different versions of switches and improve scalability.

It is not really a feature of the solution itself, but I also think that the technical support directly from the company should be better in the area of handling integrations.

We have been using this product for around 10 years.

I am very satisfied with the stability. We have not suffered any stability issues with the product being unstable on the network and it is not difficult to support. It is a very rare thing to have something happen that is related to the stability of the product.

Once you understand how the product works, it is easy to configure. I do not see any significant limitation on the scalability of the product so long as you have chosen the right product for use in your environment.

In most cases when I need to solve an issue, I search for a solution on Google and in the internet communities. I usually find what I need there. So mostly I don't need any help from support.

When I contact support, most of the time they provide good information and they are helpful, but sometimes they will not help. The problem is with acknowledging the need for integration support. If you call about integration between products, they might say something like "this is Cisco and we do not support this other product, we are supporting only Cisco products." Cisco is not the solution for everything, and they must know that the product integrates or gets integrated into a network. They are aware of that and should have the experience to help users integrate products when their product is involved. 

So, overall I'm satisfied with technical support if I call with an issue that is related only to the Cisco product, but sometimes I'm not satisfied when an issue is related to integrating or connecting with other products.

Technical support could be better in this way.

As I moved around between three or four companies to get better jobs and positions, all of them were using Cisco. In some places, we were using HP ProCurve switches. Having that experience previously is the reason why we went with Cisco for the network at this company. It costs more, yet we get a stable product with the most features. Cisco is more reliable, especially in a critical environment.

For small networks, the initial setup is straightforward. You can simply connect the product to the network and it would work. But the configuration for VLANs, to configure specific ports, and to configure security, the product has a little different interface than other Cisco solutions. So the first time setup it easy. You just have to connect and it is plug-and-play. But the difference in the interface between models makes it harder to understand the version and adapt to the differences from the other types of Cisco switches. If the interface had been the same, it would have been very quick to set up.

Actually, I did the deployment by myself. I didn't need any help or support from the vendors. If I do ever need help, I usually go to the internet and use the community and forums. In extreme cases — and very rarely — I contact the vendor directly. 

It is certainly not the least expensive product for switching, but I think it is the best and if you have the budget it is worth it.

I evaluated other options by my previous experience, so, in a way, we did evaluate other choices, but I had already made up my mind because of what I knew.

Cisco is the better solution if someone is considering it and they are willing to pay for it. The product is expensive to buy. In my current position, the budget is not a problem. If other people are in a similar situation where they can afford Cisco, I recommend Cisco. If they do not have a big budget and they need to be more budget-minded, I can recommend the HP ProCurve (now HP Networking) and D-links (Ethernet Switches) as my first choice for less expensive options.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco ethernet switches as an eight. It is not a ten because of the differences in the interface and the quality of integration support with other products.

We use these switches to improve client connections.

We're a manufacturing facility — we have POCs and terminals. We have maybe 90 to 100 users with desk phones, and roughly 20 printers.

We don't perform maintenance ourselves. A third-party company handles the maintenance. We also outsource other vendors to help us with some complex configurations that we've had implemented.  

I would like to have a way to access a graphical web interface, but they either have an outdated iOS or they don't work well with Flash. They don't work well or show us enough details. They don't show errors or bandwidth on particular reports. 

I don't know if there were optional models, but the models that we bought don't have a redundant power supply. It would be nice if they had higher wattage for PoE+.

It would also be nice if they didn't have plastic faceplates that break easily.

I have been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for over 13 years.

These switches are both stable and scalable. 

Cisco's technical support is usually quite helpful.

The initial setup is not complex, but it's not easy either. I know what to do with Cisco switches, but we had one FortiGate switch that we used to connect our firewalls which I liked because it was easy to set up and had a nice interface. 

Deployment was easy. I just took it out of the box and configured it. Deployment only took a few hours. I deployed them myself. 

We haven't seen any gains as of yet.

I am interested in switching over to Fortinet FortiSwitches. I've been checking them out, comparing the price, features, and compatibility compared to Cisco Ethernet Switches. It may be a mixed environment for a while.

We're looking for a better graphical interface and price. 

My advice would be to look at Fortinet. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches a rating of eight. 

On-premises

The blade module feature which provide the scalability for site expansion.

A Cisco Network Structure consisted of 3 Layers (Core, Distribution & Access). We used the FWSM (Firewall Services Module) to route the traffic and as a gateway to get to the WAN. As a result, we were able to collapse the Core Layer into the Distribution Layer with a few blade modules (FWSM, SUP & Ethernet).

A FoE module would be imminent in the future. This module can communicate with storage devices' and ESXi Servers' HBA (fiber) connection via fibre channel switches (Brocade or Cisco MDS). This can provide a cost effective method in a data center environment without upgrading to a more advanced Cisco Nexus core switch.

5 years

The power supply requires certain sockets and UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply). Each device should require a designated UPS for it. The UPS should not be shared with other devices. An improper termination of the switch's power supply cased a power surge and took out a SUP module during an annual power test.

No extraordinary issues. Just minor day-to-day issues.

The Chassis can run out of slots as the environment expand further along.

Customer Service: Great but Cisco outsources its customer support services to India since most of our issues and outages occurred after hours. Some support technicians have a heavy Indian accent which led to difficult comprehension and time consumption.Technical Support: 4.5 out of a 5 since Tech Support personnels are very knowledgeable of the product.

No, I have not due to our contract agreement with Cisco.

The initial setup consist of the right personnel to set up and administer the product.

All implementation were completed by in-house team members.

Centralized administration and reduced time consumption.

The SUP (Supervisor) module can provide up to 720 GBPS of data transmission compared to a stackable Cisco 3750 switches.

Yes, the Cisco Nexus 7000 Series core switches.

No further comments.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Ethernet Switches is their capacity.

The quality of Cisco Ethernet Switches could be better.

I have been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately 10 years.

We use many different versions.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are stable.

Technical support is good. I would rate them a five out of five.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are more expensive than Huawei Ethernet Switches.

I compared Cisco Ethernet Switches to those of other vendors, such as Huawei Ethernet Switches. I would say they are equal.

We are partners.

I would rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a ten out of ten.

On-premises