Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

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.

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches for LAN networking and connecting our systems.

Cisco Ethernet Switches is stable and robust.

It could be cheaper. It'll also help if it can support more network utilization.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for about two years.

I think Cisco Ethernet Switches are quite stable, and it's pretty robust,

Cisco Ethernet Switches is scalable.

We are satisfied with technical support. 

The initial setup and installation are straightforward.

A consultant implemented it.

It could be cheaper.

I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches an eight.

We primarily use the solution like a normal wired network. We use it in the area before you connect it to outer networks using the firewall. Our inner network is managed by switches. All the wired connections come to those switches. We can do internal networking on the switches such as VLANs and all of those things. We use it for basic switching purpose.

Yes, it has improved.

The solution is easy to use.

The product is quite stable, which is one of its main selling points. The solution can scale.

I don't really have a complaint about the features that the solution has.

It can be a bit expensive, however, it's not as expensive as Meraki switches.

The user interface, the UI, could be better.

Going command mode to make hardcore changes to the config. It's not so futuristic environment for configuration purposes.

While you can scale the solution, it can get expensive.

We've been using the solution for quite a while now. We've used them for at least four or five years at this point.

The solution is extremely stable. We never have issues with it. It doesn't have any underlying issues and is quite reliable.

While the solution can scale, it's a costly endeavor. Scaling definitely will cost an organization more money.

We have about 60 or 70 users of the product within our organization.

While we've occasionally had issues with the solution, we've never actually reached out to technical support. Therefore I can't speak to their responsiveness or knowledgability.

We've always used Ciscos switches of one kind or another. We've never used another brand. We're currently planning to change to Cisco Meraki switches. We haven't yet configured them, however. We're going to use it with a Palo Alto Firewall.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was extremely straightforward. That said, our setup required a very minimal configuration, and therefore it didn't take up much time. The deployment took maybe half an hour or so.

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need help from consultants or integrators.

While normal switches are not too expensive, Meraki switches are pricier.

We're just customers and end-users. We don't have any business relationship with Cisco.

It's my understanding that we are not using the latest version of the switches.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been largely pretty satisfied with the solution.

We use this solution to connect our computers.

The most valuable features of this solution are guidance, cover sheets, and access control.

The command-line interface is easy to use.

The licensing needs to be improved. You have to know upfront what kind of license you require. If you want to check quality assurance then you need to use an IP-based license. You can get that done, but sometimes it's a nuisance. For example, if you want to run certain commands then they are not all available because it depends on your license.

On the new switches, it is a bit hard to do the SPANning. The SPAN ports on the 9K series should be improved.

The stability of this solution is good.

The scalability of this solution is fine.

We have just changed partners for technical support so we are not able to rate them yet.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have always used Cisco.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We do part of it manually and part of it automatically. The biggest part is the installation and the connecting and cabling. The actual deployment of the CD itself can be a couple of hours.

We use a partner for technical support.

The price of this solution is good.

In general, Cisco is ok. It's convenient and well-documented. If you have a big landscape then Cisco is a good way forward. It is well supported and a lot of engineering people know the Cisco switches. It's like the default environment, and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a GSM mobile network operator and we use the solution for internet data.

Cisco is a large company and their product is very good with high quality. The features and customer support are good. 

In the future, some of the features could be updated to support the latest functions.

I have been using the solution for approximately ten years.

The product is really stable we have not had a problem in the ten years we have been using it.

We have found it to be scalable. We have approximately three million subscribers.

We have 20 internal engineers that do all the installation, configuration and aftercare of the product. 

It is an expensive product.

If there is another product cheaper than Ciscos and runs just as well we would switch but currently, we are satisfied.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a seven out of ten.

Our clients use this solution for monitoring and configuration purposes.

The deployment model varies from client to client.

The dashboard needs some minor improvements. Sometimes it is difficult to find items, other times it is quick, it just depends. Most of the feedback we receive are not complaints but suggestions or ideas about the dashboard.

The stability could be improved.

We have some glitches once in a while. There are times where it's a little bit slow or a bit delayed.

We have not had to scale yet, we are normally working with a fixed size. We haven't had to worry about upsizing or downsizing.

For our purposes, we are not using this, but on the client-side, we have anywhere from two to eight users, they are made up of technicians, support staff, and engineers.

For me, the initial setup was easy and straightforward, but for some of our customers who are not as familiar with networking, it can be complicated.

For a technical person, it is straightforward. Of course, now and then you have to look in the manual and read it, as nothing is completely self intuitive.

Deployment can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the requirements.

We require two employees for deployments.

We implement this solution ourselves.

There is no favorite function or feature, it depends on what you have to do and how you do it.

My advice regarding this solution is to understand your network, definitely have a look in the manual, understand the structure and don't just rely on trial and error. It's not target-aiming, so trial and error will not work.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

• Collecting Clients in the floors.
• Concentrate distribution and to forward over routers to other parts.
• Fiber and copper ports with enhanced power over Ethernet and stacks.
• NM-modules with 10G

• Good and stable operational experience with nearly no loss of hardware and very few software bugs.
• Plug and play works now.
• DNA is a very good way to do the configuration of all the equipment.

DNA Center is very interesting in automating the setup and monitoring as with each occurrence it gets easier to troubleshoot and provides an impression about what could be the problem.

Location of customers to connect clients to the servers and transport the data and VoIP in parallel with QoS and NBAR with 802.1X.