Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

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.

We're primarily using the solution for Jim basically the whole IT infrastructure, including the broadcast facility on the management side. It uses Cisco switches, which we spread out with the 9500 Series as sort of the main switches. We also use 93180s to create the backbone or spine of our setup.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ability to manage the switches and the ability to have a certain level of familiarity with setting up and configuring the switches. You can link them together and manage them as one single switch.

The biggest pain point we had was getting the switches delivered. However, that likely was due to COVID and everything else. I don't think it's a Cisco issue. It's just a supplier issue, as they seem to have a hard time getting deliveries in order.

One thing we did have to work around is, on the broadcast side, we're reliant on the PTP protocol, precision time protocol, and the Cisco switches in general, don't support that. Some do, however, the majority of ones we're using did not. We worked around it, however, that would be one area for us that would have been simply solved with more capabilities for PTP on Cisco's end.

I've dealt with the solution for a long time, however, my most recent project has just been over the last six or so months.

The solution has been absolutely fine so far and I have yet to run into any scalability issues just yet. A company should be able to expand if they need to.

We have about 100 people using the product at any given time.

I don't really have direct knowledge of technical support, however, I haven't heard anybody mention anything about reaching out to Cisco. They tend to work through their vendor CDW. I'm sure they have some support agreement with Cisco, although I'm really not the person that would be able to answer that. In general, I can't speak to Cisco's support as I've never had reason to reach out to them.

I wasn't directly involved with the configuration, however, it seemed that the main problem we had was just nailing down the requirements. The way I've worked here is there's a central IT department for the company. They're remotely configuring it. There just was a lot of confusion about specific requirements getting imported. Once those were clarified, then there was no problem setting it up. 

I don't think it's a Cisco issue. It's really an internal management issue in this company. The tools were there and once we nailed down the requirements and we understood them, then it seemed to work just fine. We haven't had any problems since then.

In terms of maintenance, there's a core IT team here of about four people with a manager. Then, there are the corporate people that are shared amongst the whole corporation. At any one time, we probably have one of those persons working on some issue here, on average. Overall, we have six people who can handle maintenance, however, it's not full-time. There are other duties too.

The costs and licensing aren't part of my job and therefore I don't know anything of exact pricing.

We provide engineering and technical support services with a hardware-software. It's my understanding that w don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

My advice to other organizations is to make sure to ensure that whoever the supplier is, they can commit to delivering and making deliveries. In our case, we're waiting on one switch for instance. It's in the mail. It got lost. Now they're promising delivery by tomorrow. I don't see that as a Cisco issue, however, it is a problem when it comes to getting everything implemented. I would have locked in the vendor that could ensure delivery if I knew these issues would arise. 

Overall, I would rate the solution as a solid eight out of ten.

We use it for data centers and for connecting computers in a local network.

I know this solution for many years. I know the GUI and commands, and they are useful for me. I have all the functions that I want.

Cisco can improve its stability for the BGP protocol. It is not stable while recalculating the BGP table.

Its price should also be improved. It is very expensive.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for 20 years.

It is stable in most cases. It is not stable while recalculating the BGP table.

It is scalable. I don't have any problem with its scalability.

We have 500 people in my company. They don't directly work on these devices. I configure these devices, and they connect through these devices.

I have a good opinion about Cisco support. I get local support from a company in Poland. If they are not able to resolve my problem, they send it to Cisco, and then Cisco resolves my problem. I don't have direct contact with Cisco support.

The initial setup is easy for me.

Its price is very high, but it is a good device. Cisco must work on its price. Other solutions provide a better price for similar functionalities.

I would recommend this solution. It is a very good solution.

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

On-premises

Cisco is number one in switches. Normally, if a manufacturer does not have the same categories as Cisco, it's not a good switch. Cisco has a lot of features that you never use that are implemented in the software. It's nice to know they are there if you need them. 

For a simple customer, the initial setup is quick and easy.

Technical support is excellent. They are very helpful.

Typically, mid-range customers don't have a need for all of the features embedded in Cisco's software.

The solution is a bit difficult.

I don't like the new way the licensing is set up. I don't like that you have to have a license of 10 years to use the switch. I don't understand that policy. It's not useful for the customer.

There are some features in previous versions or previous models that were automatically included in the software. However, now, in the new switches, they don't have it included. You have to go to an advanced version.

I've been dealing with the solution for the last two decades. It's been 20 years. I have a lot of experience with them.

The performance of the solution is very good. We've found the solution to be reliable.

While I haven't been in touch with Cisco's technical support in the past year, I have worked with them in the past and I have always had a positive experience. I would rate their services nine out of ten. They are knowledgeable and responsive. We are satisfied with eh support they provide. They are likely the best on the market in terms of support.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not difficult or anything. 

There are lots of ways to do the initial configuration. It's very flexible. I typically use the traditional setup, however, you don't necessarily need to.

Deployment times vary. It depends on the client and the environment and what you want to do.

For someone who knows what they are doing, it might take an hour or so to have a suite deployed. Others might need more time or might have to do more integrations with a network that's in production. That could take a week or more. It all depends.

That said, even with configuration and integration in the mix, it's not too difficult. A company shouldn't run into any problems.

There are other manufacturers that may offer better pricing. The price is important. It may be a deciding factor for some.

We are a Cisco partner. We are also a Cisco customer.

I've dealt with a lot of Cisco switches and a lot of different versions over the years.

I would recommend the solution to others. They are likely the first option if you compare it to other manufacturers. The features and performance are superior. It would be difficult to find something better than Cisco. 

We use these switches in our data center core to handle all of the converged networks. They handle our SAN servers as well as other components.

The outer perimeter is handled by the Cisco 2960s, for distribution of traffic to endpoint clients.

These switches help to build the best network, the way we want it. There is a guarantee that makes us feel better about having a secure network.

The most valuable feature is the performance and ability to handle the flow of traffic.

The redundancy that the switches provide is very good.

There is a focus on improving the UI for managing the higher-end switches and routers, but not the traditional ones. Putting in a more complete management infrastructure would help when it comes to handling lower-end switches.

These switches are pretty expensive to put into place, so if they could bring the price point down then it would be really good.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet switches for just over ten years.

This solution very well handles the capability for scaling. It is fairly simple and easy to do.

Sometimes we have issues with certain switches hanging.

I have only indirectly been in contact with technical support through our vendor. Our interactions mostly had to do with registering the product and downloading updates. We have not been in contact concerning a particular issue about a product.

Our initial setup was more than ten years ago, and it is something that has been modified over time. Whatever it was, originally, has been rebuilt. As we continue to add new components, it becomes simpler and easier for us to go forward. 

The deployment for the data center core took four days to get all of the services up and running. This included the interfacing, as well as cutting over to ensure that there was no outage. A lot of this had to do with the waiting time and change control, where the cut-over was done during hours that are less used by the employees.

Our other primary switches were pretty simple to change, as and when required. This was never much of a dealy.

Our vendor assisted us with the original deployment. Our project team consisted of four people and there was an additional person from the vendor.

These switches are expensive, but they are an excellent buy and definitely have value for the investment.

The switches that we have purchased handle our load pretty well. We do not have a high data plan network.

When our switches age beyond the life cycle then each will be replaced with whatever the current model is in the market at the time. In the future, we would like to integrate Cisco Aironet, although Wi-Fi is a bit down the line for us.

Overall, this is a good product but there is always room for improvement. My main complaint about Cisco is the price aspect.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

On-premises

We primarily use the solution for access aggregation and IP routing.

The queue functionality is the solution's most valuable feature, specifically because we are delivering a lot of Layer 2 services. Layer 2 protocol tunnels work well on Cisco switches.

The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly.

Cisco should offer different equipment. Some features which are needed at present, for example, require making ethernet loopbacks for testing purposes are not available. They need to offer something like this.

I've been using the solution for 15 years.

The solution isn't quite stable. We do find a lot of bugs. 

For Level 2 switching only, it's okay. 

When you look at advanced features, from time to time we have memory issues.

Some versions of the solution can scale with a stacking option. So far, we've been satisfied with the level of scalability we can achieve. We know what we can do using the right point in the network.

We're satisfied with technical support. They answer quite fast when it comes to troubleshooting on the Cisco side. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

How long deployment takes depends on the configuration of standard features. It may take a few hours. It's more complex when we are using IP or VRF light functions.

You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation internally.

The equipment we bought with a perpetual license. We're not using a monthly or yearly licensing model. Any additional costs are reasonable. The hardware and software support came with additional costs.

We are using a variety of Cisco ranges, including 2900, 3600, 3700, 4900, and 7600 series.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

In terms of advice I'd give to those considering implementing the solution, I'd say that they should know what features they want to use in order to choose the right platform. There are solutions, such as Juniper, for example, that vary in performance and in features. Be sure to ask Cisco or any other vendor lots of questions in the design phase to ensure you're choosing the right solution for your company.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. The solution lacks some stability but it compensates by offering great features.

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches in government offices that are in multiple locations.

We have experienced some issues with Cisco SG350 switches. We have not been able to use this switch at normal temperatures as it automatically reboots.

I've been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for 10 years.

I would rate the stability at ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution, and we have more than 35 customers who use it.

Technical support staff usually get back to us in 30 minutes to four hours. It took them 24 hours to respond only once. Therefore, I would rate technical support at ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. For the deployment and maintenance, we have seven technical and non-technical staff members.

The price is very high though it is priced right for the level of quality.

I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches and rate it at ten on a scale from one to ten. However, it may not be as available in certain countries such as India.

I've been using Cisco Switches for seven to eight years.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are stable.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are scalable, much more than Jupiter. 

Cisco's technical support is very responsive.

The initial setup for on-prem versions is complex and requires a trained, certified engineer. However, the cloud versions are straightforward. Catalyst switches take around fifteen to thirty minutes to deploy, while the Meraki switches take about twenty minutes.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are expensive, and you have to pay for a warranty and technical support.

I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches, as long as you have the budget. I'd rate this solution nine out of ten.