Cisco Nexus Reviews

We use this solution in our data center core. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to grow into ACI.

I would like to see some development into the SAE world where you can virtualize. That would be the only thing I would like to see because I need to start virtualizing my infrastructure gear at some of the other data centers that I have.

Cisco Nexus has been very stable. No issues. It's been rock solid. We haven't had any issues with it in the last twelve months. It's been good.

The scalability of this solution meets the needs that we have. The density of it is a lot higher than the 7Ks. It's good for us from that perspective. 

I could take two 7Ks that are 16-chassis, get it down into eight and have twice as much throughput. 

The solution's technical support has been fine. We haven't had to use it much.

At this point, the newest solution was purchased out of necessity for end-of-life gear. It was a refresh. Our previous solution was 7K, 5K, 2K. 

The 2Ks and 5Ks were going end-of-life. We're starting to prepare for the 7Ks going end-of-life. We went with the Cisco Nexus 9K solutions because of this.

The initial setup of the Cisco Nexus series is very straightforward. We didn't have any issues. 

We already had a 5K, 7K, and 2K environment. Going to the 9Ks was straightforward. We were experienced in the Nexus area. It wasn't anything new.

Deployment was done by a supplier partner of ours, British Telecom. Our experience with them was good.

It's around $160K a year for our license.

We have a management contract with Cisco. They are our managed service provider. We didn't have much of a choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this product a ten because of the stability. Stability is my biggest key right now. Cisco Nexus has been stable since it was implemented last year.

It's a good product. I haven't had any issues whatsoever. 

We use the 9000s in a series of different things in both the data center and even in the LAN (Local Area Network). Mainly we just use the products for the management of all the traffic — nothing really crazy. Being in the government, we can't use ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) and certain other technologies yet. The 9000s are deployed for high-end layer two and layer three switching capabilities.

The solution has improved operations by helping us resolve bottlenecks throughout our infrastructure. A lot of it came down to the fact that these new products have a much higher throughput. So it kind of cleans traffic up and makes things a lot smoother in process.

The most valuable benefit of this solution is the ability to use all the different features like VX LAN (Virtual Extensible LAN) and PPC. We use the solutions in the data center and on the LAN side. For all intents and purposes, we were kind of hoping that the 9000s would take on the form of multiple contacts and VDCs (Virtual Device Contexts) like the 7000s have, but we haven't seen that capability come out yet.

The only real feature that we are hoping would evolve at some point is multi-contexts to get into multi-tenancy type environments. We are very interested in that with the 7000s. But we didn't like all the other robustness that 7000s had that we had to pay extra for. 9000s fit our needs a little bit better, but multi-contexts would be a really good feature for organizations like us, so we can separate different tenants logically and in a more secure fashion.

So far the stability is great. We never had any kind of problems with it. I really can't even speak to any questions about the stability because of the fact that we had zero problems. We've only been using it for about a year-and-a-half though. We are hoping to keep continue on that path and that everything continues to perform at a high level.

The scalability of the product is great. We buy way above what we really need. So when it comes to density, throughput, feature sets, software, etcetera, we find out what we need and we can just upgrade it. That approach has made things really good. We look forward to tapping into the ability to start automating things through Python and Linux customizations.

We were getting bottlenecks at throughput because our equipment was just getting too old and too slow. The whole architecture was archaic. We saw our chance to make a major change and not just replace a hubcap with a hubcap. We decided to go with a much better solution.

The setup wasn't really complex beyond the fact that we switched to a different platform that has a totally different operating system. It was a bit of a learning curve for us. We weren't heavily into Nexus, so current staff didn't have skills using that iOS screen immediately. But now it's a lesson learned, always very easy to get around after a little while.

We went through a reseller for implementation. Worldwide Technologies was the one we chose for the major part of this. We've also used Force 3 for some other smaller purchases and the integration of this kind of product, too. But our biggest purchase that changed our environment was through Worldwide Technologies.

Our experience with them was outstanding. They were willing to meet with us, engage with us and discuss where we wanted to go with the capability ad nauseam with no restraints. They would come to us and have workshops and everything without any kind of problems.

We went straight to Cisco and actually did not consider other solutions. It was partly because of familiarity. All of their staff were trained in what we needed. We can change product lines within Cisco if we needed to upgrade without any pain points. We didn't bother to consider other vendors.

I would rate the Cisco solutions as a nine out of ten because nothing is a ten. Everything can improve. It's a top-notch product and it has not done anything short of everything we wanted it to do. 

As far as advice, I would definitely say to try to look five years ahead, instead of just one or two. In our case, unique things about the nine K's are that they can run in iOS or ACI mode and that works with our planning. It was very favorable that we could maintain our current style of infrastructure that is not as automated. But then, through a transition plan, we won't need to buy new hardware to switch over to a more automated approach like with ACI. For us, that was a very favorable capability of this product that conformed to our future modeling. 

We are using this solution in the redesign of our data center network. Specifically, to provide an aggregation point for our data center services.

This solution provides our organization with more business continuity and high availability. This is because we can build them in ways with technology, like VPC, to make sure that our network is constantly up and available to our end users.

The biggest benefit to this solution is a high port density with high bandwidth. A big strength is the high bandwidth backplane, line rate speeds, and switching and routing packets.

We have uncovered things about some of the features where there is room for improvement.  

• There are limitations on some of the lower level 9K solutions where you can't do the same things that you would normally be able to do, like for instance the number of static maps that you can configure on it.
• There are limitations between different product IDs that I do not really understand, and I don't think that there is a really good reason for.

This is an extremely stable solution. I would say that heeding or taking note of the software versions that Cisco recommends is probably a good idea because that's where you find the most stable features. When you do that, or you follow the low level, baseline requirements, it is very stable.

The 9K series is very scalable because you have multiple different PIDs that allow you to put them where you want them. They can be on the core, your access, or your aggregational layer. You can do a lot of different things with them. They're a very scalable switching solution.

Cisco technical support is much like any other. The first level is often a little bit laboring to get through that process, but once you get to their second or third level of support, they are very knowledgable about the solution.

If you're dealing with a bug or a feature that you're not really understanding, it often takes a day to get through that process. If on the other hand, it is a situation where you have a priority one network down then you can generally jump through the ranks pretty quickly.

Our existing network had been neglected for a long time before I joined the company. We wanted to become more relevant with the times, knowing that we're pushing a lot of stuff to the edge, trying to get higher bandwidth to our core.

We were comfortable with Cisco's technology and Cisco's footprint, so we started by getting some information from them. After this, we began to have regular meetings with them to discuss our design and how it would be implemented.

I think that the initial setup would be complex for someone that does not know the technology. You do have to know some of the underlying technologies in order to use this solution because it's not something that you can just unbox and start using. There is a learning curve.

We purchased the product through a reseller, MTM Technology, and they are very good. We have a long relationship with them.

We are deploying the solution with our in-house team.

All of our costs including subscription, licensing, and support services are bundled together, and the cost is approximately $100,000 USD per year.

We were pretty focused on Cisco. That is where we wanted to go.

We are using this solution in a very specific use case right now. I do see more flexibility and availability, but for us, a pretty small network, I haven't really unlocked a lot of the features.

My advice to anybody looking to implement this solution is to take your time in finding the right design. I have worked with Cisco for a long time, and I've worked with other manufacturers like HP, Dell, and Arista. I think that Cisco is definitely the leader in the market, but I do think that if you rush through the design process then you might find yourself making decisions prematurely. 

This is a good solution, but there is some room for improvement on some of the things that we have discovered.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in the customer's companies. I have used many different version of the solution. 

I find all the data center features to be most valuable, such as VXLAN and OTV. The ACI and FEX connectivity are good features too. Cisco is refining the features all the time and you can see this in all the different vendors.

They could improve on having different technologies between product models. The management dashboard could be better if it could handle the Catalyst and the Nexus at the same time. If Cisco could find management connectivity between the DMA center and the ACI connectivity this would be helpful.

I have been using the product for more than ten years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the scalability good with this product.

The support we received was excellent.

I have worked previously with Catalyst version 6500, 4500, and 3750 series, most of them.

The setup of the solution was easy.

The price of the product is reasonable.

In all the benchmarks and testing that I did, I found the best solution to be Cisco. I recommend the product. They have a good product with all the features that are required. 

I rate Cisco Nexus a nine out of ten.

We use it for data center connectivity and we integrate it with ACI. 

We are a Cisco shop. This solution is better compared to other options. 

It's easy to use. 

I would like to see more automation and for it to be easier to use. 

Stability is much better than it was. 

Scalability is good. 

Their technical support is better than other companies. 

The setup can be easy and complex depending on the product and features we're using. 

We used in-house resources for the deployment. 

Our licensing costs are yearly. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. Nexus is better than other switches so I would advise going with this solution. 

Our primary use case for Cisco Nexus is the data center. We use it for all of our enterprise servers, for our phone systems, and other things along those lines.

We use Cisco Nexus for high availability for one of our line control systems.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Nexus is speed compared to what you would get from a Catalyst Series switch.

The solution has room for improvement in terms of the learning curve.

We haven't had any issues with the ones we've installed initially. They're still up and running as they should be.

I don't have experience with the scalability aspect of it. In our server farms, we haven't added any since install and it's done its job. 

From where we're at, if we needed to add more effects to Cisco Nexus, we could. I don't see any issues with doing that.

Just like all the Cisco support, it's easy to get through: just open the ticket over the phone. 

They usually help us right away. We don't have any issues with working with Cisco tech support. They have resolved all of our cases.

We used an integrator reseller for the deployment called BPlus. Our experience was pretty good. Sales are straightforward. They get us a reasonable discount.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate this product an eight just because I don't have to touch it. It works.

I would recommend it from the aspect that it's been configured and we have not touched it since, aside from regular adds, moves, and changes. 

Go through someone who builds data centers for the most effective use of Cisco Nexus.

Cisco Nexus introduced VDC, Virtual Device Context, meaning the person has a single physical box, usually one pair, for dynamic purposes. This pair allows one to create multiple logical switches, for totally different functioning. One could be for production, another for UAT, a third for Dev. Yet, we are talking about a physically single box. It has also introduced VPC, Virtual Port Channel, which allows for more redundancy and flexibility.

Cisco Nexus if focused primarily on the data center. While it has been in the market for nearly ten years, there are still many areas in need of improvement. There may be many bugs which remain unresolved. It is important for Cisco to be aware of the various issues it encounters and come up with new releases. 

The frequency with which this occurs can vary. It may take months, be done quarterly or, sometimes, after half a year has elapsed. There is still much to be done to increase their stability, something which can depend. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We have been dealing with Cisco Nexus since it first emerged around ten years ago. 

While this can depend, there is still much to be done to improve the solution's stability. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

Nexus, which uses NX-OS, runs on a different operating system than CatOS, which means that the latter tends to run on OS - just like a Cisco router - only with the functioning being a bit different. While NX-OS is very different, even when it comes to the command line, most things are the same.

However, NX-OS already introduced a different concept, which is more like a carrier level. They have a dedicated command management module. All other modules have comparatively many more functions or power than regular Catalyst switches.

Nexus' primary focus is on the data center and supports what are known as top-of-rack or end-of-rack features, including the cost of cabling. So too, the latest one, the Nexus 9K, also supports a software-defined cloud with Cisco ACI, which is what this is referred to when typically deployed inside the company.

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We are talking about a network portion. Catalyst and Nexus switches are all part of the network domain.

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten, as it is a new platform. 

We got it for its port density. Our primary use case of this solution is so we can connect all of our other departments and agencies. It'll be the main connection to our core routers. I don't work directly on it, I work with the router that connects to it. 

It has improved our organization because we have aggregated ports and we're able to put multiple agencies on the multiple different interfaces that we have going there. We're able to separate them out with the use of VLANs and whatnot.

The VLAN is a little more hand driven now. I don't know exactly why the split screen does that.

If we could get some more automation integrated into it, it would make it easier.

As far as I know, it's been stable the entire time we've had it. 

We haven't surpassed the scalability at this point. 

I haven't had to use their technical support for this solution but I have used Cisco support in general. They're outstanding. 

We knew we needed to switch solutions because when we migrated to Cisco as a network, we needed a good way to could control a lot of our outside agencies.

We did the deployment ourselves and we have a reseller that sells us the equipment. 

We do yearly licensing. 

I would rate this solution an eight or nine out of ten. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to research what your actual needs are so that you size it correctly. You can always upgrade size. It's harder to downgrade.