Cisco FabricPath Reviews

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the infrastructure and telecommunications manager. 

Cisco has created a good balance for traffic with this solution. We can select a priority package for these products and give additional bandwidth if we need it. We're not using the load balance, it's the fabric switching that is the most important thing we do.

I'd like to see better integration with SIEM, perhaps to generate more plugins that can adapt to the traffic analyzer. We also have some issues with the technical support because in Mexico the hardware is not always readily available. We had to wait around 50 days for a part. It's crucial to have sufficient stock on hand for your customers. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We haven't had any issues with stability. We maintain the updates of the firmware and we haven't had any problems in production.

The solution is scalalble, we have around 300 users.

We used to use Avaya but we changed to Cisco because we needed some extra intelligence in the network and Avaya didn't have the hardware for that. 

The initial setup is very easy because we have good engineers. We created a template for our business and we make changes to the solution every two weeks. This is good for us and for the business. The initial deployment took two weeks. 

We have a problem with the licensing costs because all contracts are in American dollars. Mexican pesos have a disadvantage in that market, and it's a problem getting dollars in Mexico. It's also an expensive product for us. 

It's important to understand the core business of your organization, not every organization needs a solution as large as Cisco's. We only use around 30% of what this solution offers. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Cisco FabricPath comes thru Cisco NX-OS Software that brings the strength and scalability of routing to Layer 2. it uses routing principles to scale the layer 2 network which is a bit difficult before that. because it provides loop prevention and mitigation within the data plane, it helps to ensure safe forwarding that is unmatched by any other bridge technology. Therefore this is most beneficial in data centers service for their applications that can use widely. 

This protocol requires less integration than a similar network based on the Spanning-Tree-Protocol.

The documents could improve for Cisco FabricPath. There are times when the relevant information is not present in the different sections of the documents, such as deployment. The documents should be more detailed and enhanced.

Having better documentation would benefit the engineers working on the solution.

I have been using Cisco FabricPath for approximately one year.

Cisco FabricPath is stable. My customers are operating the solution smoothly and there have not been any major issues.

Cisco FabricPath is scalable.

We have one client using this solution.

The support was helpful and their support is quite fast.

The initial installation was not simple. We had some difficulties since it was the first time for us. They had used documents a few times and we did seek support from Cisco. I'm happy they connected the client with the correct supporting business. They were supportive.

The whole implementation process took a few weeks.

The price of Cisco FabricPath could be reduced, it is expensive in the market here. The solution is available as perpetual, subscriptions-based, and Tier-based licensing, if the customer wants any future integrations, or if there are any future enhancements they will have to pay. Purchasing a subscription-based license gives you the opportunity to adjust/upgrade the terms of the license (such as moving from Advantage to Premier) at the time of license renewal.

I would not recommend this solution for small-scale networks because it is a bit expensive and particularly at this moment, Other than the price, I would recommend it technically. I rate Cisco FabricPath a nine out of ten.

The solution provides a broader speed of connectivity for our applications. That means if we deploy multiple applications into our data center and we don't want a delay between our application and our storage, then we have to use Cisco FabricPath for that as well as for the storage end.

We can deploy our storage on the network and we can get a wider speed for our storage. This means we can take storage from our network to deploy to any machine, to install any server, or any application.

The setup is straightforward.

It's a scalable solution.

We've found the product to the stable. 

I can't speak to any areas that need improvement right now. 

The solution is costly.

I've used the solution for a while. I used it most recently, about ten months ago.

The solution is stable and reliable with good performance on offer. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable; we can expand it. 

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's easy; it's not complex. 

I can't speak too much on the deployment process, as I don't handle it directly.

While it is a very useful product, it is expensive. We find the value we get to be worth the money we spend. 

I haven't used any other vendor, so I can't compare anyone to Cisco.

We are a user and provide support on devices. 

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

If a company has to deploy multiple applications where the speed and the accuracy of communication matter, then I would suggest Cisco FabricPath. That said, if they have too many legacy applications or too many legacy requirements for the network, then a different type of technology could be more suitable.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Cisco FabricPath is a very good technology, and I have been using it within my profession.

We use FabricPath in the Cisco Data Center Switches. FabricPath is a license to inject into Cisco Data Center Switches like Nexus 7K, 9K for reducing the Spanning Tree phenomenon.

Cisco FabricPath is used to eliminate Spanning Tree broadcasts into the Layer 2 network. We can configure the FabricPath in a lot of different interfaces for communicating with different switches and disabling the Spanning Tree Protocol so we can't have a loop in the leaf and spine architecture.

The setup is very simple. 

We have found the solution to be stable.

It scales well.

There could always be more interfaces included in the switch.

If Cisco can include management for this protocol in Layer 3, that would be ideal. For example, we have our first data center in the USA and the second data center is in Europe. If we could juxtapose FabricPath for managing the Layer 2 loop between these two data centers locally, that would be great. 

We have used the solution since 2018.

It's stable. Really, we don't have any problems with FabricPath when we configure it into our Nexus switches. It's very stable without looping into our Layer 2 network. I recommend its usage for this reason, really.

The product scales well. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We don't have any problems with FabricPath. If we have to reach out to Cisco support to resolve a problem, we can, however, it rarely happens. That said, if you call Cisco to resolve a problem, it's my understanding that they have very good support can resolve problems immediately. Support from Cisco is very, very good.

So far, we have found the initial setup to be very simple, very straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

The solution is very, very cheap compared with all other brands - including Huawei or HPE Switches. We buy Cisco for the performance, really the performance, scalability, backup, and a lot of technology like VPC, OTV, or VDC, Virtual Device Context. It's good.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the product for a company that has a very big data center. It's good for those in banking or insurance, for example.  

The most valuable features are the lead time and the high quality of the product.

My company's been using FabricPath for the last twenty to twenty-five years.

FabricPath is stable.

FabricPath is scalable.

Cisco's technical support is very good - they always make the deadlines.

The initial setup is a little complex.

FabricPath is very reasonably priced.

In terms of future models, Cisco are already building up, so they're up to the mark in terms of digital turnaround. I would give FabricPath a score of seven out of ten.

Cisco FabricPath is preferred mostly for its security features and user-friendliness.

The product's most valuable feature is its ports. They are reliable and do not give problems like many other switches. They can be used for a very long time without failures.

They should consider upgrading the memory feature of the product.

I have been working with Cisco FabricPath for two years.

I rate the product stability a seven. 

I rate the platform's scalability as an eight.

The deployment took approximately six weeks to complete. I rate the initial setup process an eight. 

We take assistance from a third-party vendor for implementation. 

Cisco is expensive but offers good-quality features, so I would rate it high on the pricing scale.

The topology management of Cisco FabricPath is perfect. 

Overall, I rate the product a seven.

We are a leading solution integrator and Cisco FabriPath is one of the products that we implement for our customers.

This solution makes up part of an enterprise LAN. 

The technical assistance is good.

The exact role that this solution plays, as compared to other products by Cisco, is unclear to our customers. It is sometimes difficult to highlight exactly what individual products are used for and it is something that should be simplified.

This product doesn't have its own LAN monitoring tool.

There would be more support for this solution if there were options available for those with a smaller budget.

We have been working with Cisco for at least ten years.

Cisco FabriPath is a stable solution. Apart from a few cases, we have had no issues with reliability.

We have not had any issues with scalability.

We are satisfied with the technical support.

We primarily use Cisco, but apart from that, we also use networking solutions from Aruba.

If a customer has a critical demand for a product from another vendor such as Juniper or HPE then we can provide it. However, normally we use either Cisco or Aruba.

We are satisfied with the pricing.

Most of our customers are satisfied with the solutions from Cisco. That said, nothing is ever completed because everybody has their own difficulties and challenges.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I mainly use FabricPath to install equipment for core and LAN switching and for access for users to connect to the MPLS, internet, and SD-WAN.

FabricPath's best features are routing, OSPS, ethernet, and performance.

FabricPath's stability is good.

FabricPath is easy to scale.

Cisco's technical support is good because we have a network operation center.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

The prices for FabricPath are very high, and Cisco also takes a long time to deliver products (in Mexico, the delivery time is eight months).

I would rate FabricPath as ten out of ten.