Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

We have been utilizing Cisco Ethernet Switches to establish networks tailored to the customer's needs. For instance, if they want to set up a network for their office or personal use, but not for large corporations. I am not as proficient or experienced with implementing it for large enterprises.

Cisco Ethernet Switches have a lot of valuable features. One that stands out to me is its ease of implementation.

The ease of use of Cisco Ethernet Switches could improve. It is different to use them if you do not have prior knowledge.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately six months.

The stability of Cisco Ethernet Switches is great. Once we did have a problem Cisco was quick and fast to solve it.

The support was quick to solve one of the issues we were having with stability.

The initial setup of Cisco Ethernet Switches can be simple, but it does require some level of experience and certification. Once you have that, it's easy to apply all your knowledge and scripts to real-world scenarios.

The deployment took some time because we had to configure each one individually and troubleshoot any issues that arose. Once we were able to successfully ping the last router and access the internet, we were finished. However, some of our trouble may have been due to our lack of experience and professionalism as some of my colleagues who work with Cisco and other solutions did not have as much difficulty. It ultimately depends on how much hands-on experience you have with the products.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco Ethernet Switches a seven out of ten.

The solution has different prices depending on the features that you want to have.

I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches for those who have prior knowledge because they can be difficult to use.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a nine out of ten.

On-premises

We have a local network and we have four Cisco Ethernet Switches that have 48 ports.

The management of the solution could improve.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are stable.

The solution is scalable.

Cisco technical support is good. We have a better experience because we have local support when we have some technical problems. The team support is very good.

The setup of the solution is easy.

The price of Cisco Ethernet Switches here in India is too high. There are other cheaper solutions available.

Our management has decided we should look into other solutions, and we are currently evaluating Juniper switches. We are checking the performance of the solution.

Cisco products are good, but nowadays technology is changing, some other products are available in the market. We are checking some different products available. I'll see how the performance is and how it works on the network.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a nine out of ten.

On-premises

We are using Cisco Switches in a data center for access at the core level and the access level as well.

What I like the most is the performance and the latency that Cisco provides.

Once you have the Cisco box, you can put it in its place, switch it on and you can forget that it is there.

The GUI is not that easy. They need to work on the CLI, and to do that you have to have technical resources in-house if you want to do it yourself.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately two years with this company. I have been using Cisco for two years, but in my entire career, I have been using Cisco for 15 years.

It's a stable solution. There are no issues with stability.

There are no limitations to scalability. It depends on what you choose. Once you choose the product you want then collaborate with getting that box which is important.

You need to know what your plan is two years in advance, and how you want to upgrade it. You will need to select the box as it is.

If you make your own selection, there may be an issue. Cisco provides many scalable options.

It has never been a case of getting support from Cisco directly. I have purchased Cisco from my vendor and receive 100% support. I have no issues with support in my city. From whatever vendor I purchase from, I get full support.

The initial setup is not too complex, but you will need to have technical resources if you want to configure it properly.

They are plug and play. You can just plug and start working with it, but in order to use the full features or basic features, you need some kind of technical expertise.

In Cisco, the GUI interface is not that easy. 

If you are not a technical person, you can install it, but you can't use it to its full potential. You will be working with a simple switch and for what you are paying, you won't be getting anything out of it, as it won't be configured properly.

The price could be reduced. Cisco is costly.

Price is a major concern with Cisco. Companies tend to move away from Cisco because the price is on the higher side. In addition to the fees being high, you pay for support which is also on the higher side.

Many companies tend to go with other options because of pricing.

We did a comparison between Cisco and Ruckus because we were looking at changing our wireless system.

We use Cisco, but have not used Ruckus before and wanted to evaluate which was better.

The PoC that was completed showed that Ruckus was more successful and useful than Cisco. Also, the cost of Cisco is much higher than Ruckus is.

When comparing cost, the ROI, and the cost of support, Cisco is way above Ruckus. We have decided that we will be changing to Ruckus.

I would 100% recommend Cisco Switches to others who are interested in using them.

Being an IT head, and running a data center, my top priority is to have zero down-time.

Once you have Cisco, your mind is at ease, there will be no issues.

If my rating is based on technical and functionality then I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. If you include the cost and the support then I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

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.

Remote management and monitoring, multi-layer switching, flexibility, per port configurations, possibility of port aggregation, standard management interface, loads of documentation available from Cisco and Partners, multitude of troubleshooting tools embedded in the OS, QoS.

Ease of deployment of internal networks, separation of departments traffic, replacement of hubs (and the respective absence of collision related network unavailability), implementation of VoIP, improved configuration and access management.

VTP should be configured as Transparent by default.

Several years, on different projects.

A close look at each part-number characteristics is recommended, especially regarding the type of Uplink Ports (do you need fiber or copper uplinks for example?) and specific protocols (do you need BGP? is RIPv2 enough, for instance), as some of them are only available in specific models or with additional licenses. Selecting the licensing type can be the slightly tricky part, although you can usually upgrade it later.

Not unless it was caused by malfunction or a mixup in configuration.

On the specific cases I used, never. Adding new switches to the networks is painless (but please be careful with the VTP configuration though, as if it’s not configured you do have the possibility of a new switch giving you trouble with the VLAN configuration).

Customer Service: Excellent.Technical Support: Besides the great set of documentation available, partner support is usually good, no issues so far, on different projects.

Previous configuration was based on a basic router and switch configuration for each separate network, interconnecting at router level. The needs included reducing equipments, add management to the network to allow central monitoring and configuration, and adding new functionalities to the network, as well as having a buildup of different networks to separate traffic.

Straightforward if you’re installing for the first time. If it’s not the first installation, and you have multiple VLANs in place, be careful with the VTP configuration setup, as a misconfigured switch, since it’s on VTP server mode, can give you trouble.

Mixed types of implementations. Mixed expertise levels - some partners have better technicians than others, but never had a case where the technician didn’t leave with the configuration completed.

Generally a reduction on the number of equipments to manage, less time to manage and higher uptime.

Day to day costs are the maintenance costs from the manufacturer (different levels available), and part of the time of the IT Team. Setup Costs have depended on projects, and specific setup needs.

A few, namely Huawei and HP. While Huawei did allow some of the same characteristics at a lower price, available expertise and documentation, tipped the balance to Cisco, and the greater flexibility and feature set tipped the balance from HP.

Check that it’s the most cost effective solution (it’s very expensive if you only want to connect 4 users and a printer.); Check the model that fits your needs, regarding number of ports, and PoE for instance (no need of PoE for most uses.); Main uses would be to use a solution with multiple internal VLANs (needs at least IP Base License), VoIP implementations, and adding security and manageability to the network; Carefully check what License Feature set you need (there are 3 levels, LAN Base, IP Base, and IP Services), depending on your needs. You may be able to upgrade the software feature set later, but should check ahead.

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches in our data center.

The most valuable feature is that we create a network as a villain. For some time, we use a port channel and sometimes, the Spanning Tree Protocol for requests. We search for the user's Cisco Internet switches for small packets.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for six years.

The Cisco Ethernet Switches are very stable and a leader in the market.

The solution is scalable and we have the ability to upgrade our appliances without impacting our services.

The Cisco technical support is good but when compared to other products such as McAfee and Palo Alto they have room for improvement.

For Cisco Catalyst switches, the initial setup was usually automated for large-scale deployments such as Azure, which worked well. However, for newer technologies such as Cisco ACI, the initial setup can be challenging. Once the primary phase is completed, however, the efficiency of the operation requires less support.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches for our data center, management center, and at our headquarters.

I'm satisfied with Cisco switches. It's stable and beautiful. 

Technical support could be better. Firmware upgrades should be better. We have an issue with upgrading the firmware. It's not upgradable. I think it should be easy to improve and upgrade the firmware.

Some of the powerboards could be better. I have about six models or six spots with Model 3550, and all of them have a defect in the powerboards.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for many years. I have many models, and some models are older than 20 years. They have worked up to now, and we have used the newest versions for about five years.

Technical support could be better. I think they take some long time to exchange a switch or replace it.

It's a little expensive.

I would tell potential users that they should use it if it's within their budget.

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

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?