Cisco Nexus Reviews

We use the solution for the data center.

We are using the vPC and FEX. The integrations are valuable.

The pricing must be improved.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

There are no bugs or glitches. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

We have two to three users. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The deployment requires two to three months. It’s a heavy setup. Around three to four people were involved in the setup.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

We are planning to deploy Cisco ACI. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is for our core. We have Nexus 9000 and also Catalyst 9000 floor switches.

This product has improved the way our organization functions through automation. Before 9000, we were just using the 7000 and the Nexus OS. With 9000 now, we have much more automation. Everything was more manual before. 

The most valuable feature is the automation that we can do with it. 

Cisco Nexus is very new. We're still on the learning curve for the 9000.

It is very stable. We have not had any issues so far.

The Cisco Nexus platform is very scalable with the modular design.

The solution's technical support is very good. It's Cisco. For 9000 they're very responsive. We haven't had any 911 issues so far because it's new to our organization.

Whenever we have a problem or question they're very good and pretty responsive. Any ticket receives almost immediate help. We haven't had anything negative so far.

We switched because we needed automation and because the 7000s were reaching end-of-life.

The initial setup of Cisco Nexus was straightforward. It was good. It wasn't that complex because we already had the 7000. 

We used a reseller for the implementation. 

I don't really deal with the pricing but I know that it's not cheap. 

On a scale from one to ten, I rate this product a solid nine. They've been very good to us.

I would advise reading information online to learn more about Cisco Nexus. See how powerful it is.

We use this solution as an aggregate router in our data center environment so that we can have an extended VLAN port between different data centers, regional and local.

The company has multiple data centers and most of the connections between them are through the 9K switches. We also have a couple of them in our lab for testing. These are used to test throughput, the system reliability, accuracy, and scalability for how many VLAN extenders we can have in our infrastructure.

We are using Spine-and-Leaf architecture for our data centers.

The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and throughput. We are extending the VLAN to multiple data centers.

We would like to see this solution support routing.

One of the problems we have is that there is no confirmation for when you try to test a system command. It just accepts it and does not give you a response.

Stability is very good. We have been using it a lot and for a long time. It is being upgraded all the time.

Our environment is very large. We have multiple regional and national data centers, where data is sent between them.

Technical support for this solution is very good. I have been working with them for a while. We have dedicated line support for HTTP.

The initial setup of this solution is not very complex. The problem is reliability. We get help from Cisco technical support and Cisco sales, and the deployment has to be coordinated with the Cisco architectural team to get it working on our network. There are a lot of people involved in the deployment, and before anything, it has to be tested.

We have advanced engineering, where they do the testing to make sure that the problems are being captured. If there are any issues then they are sent back to operations before they can deploy.

We use a Cisco consultant for deployment. They are a reseller for the whole region. Everything is taken from the warehouse, prepped, and tested to make sure that everything is working. Their response is very good, and we have been working with them for a long time.

Our licensing fees are paid annually.

The company is currently investing heavily in new technology from Cisco. This includes the SD-WAN, a network administration system, and NFV for the virtual firewall.

For this solution, we did not consider other vendors. However, we do use multiple vendors for our firewall and routing solutions.

For anybody researching this solution, I would recommend looking at the 9K, but you have to look at all of the metrics and compare them between vendors. This is the way to come up with the best solution. Everything, including technical support, has to be considered because, for example, you can have the product but if you don't have support then you are going to have to deal with issues by yourself.

Overall, this product is good, but nothing is perfect. It is important to have competition.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution manages our data center and is our core infrastructure switch. All of our firewalls and application servers terminate into the 5K.

The most valuable feature is its flexibility. You can put different blades in it to give scalability, but it is older technology.

This solution is only scalable to a degree.

This is a very expensive product.

Areas in which the solution have room for improvement are the interface, management, and reporting. You still have to go deep into the CLI to find issues.

This is a very stable solution. I have a separate model, a 7K, that has been up and running for seven and a half years.

The scalability of this solution is limited. You can only add so much hardware capacity to them, and because it's hardware based, you can't get the new features sets without putting new switches in.

Technical support is very robust. The Nexus line is the backbone of Cisco's data center. Anytime I have had to call technical support for anything, they have been able to assist us.

As a solution reaches end-of-life you replace it. We're using the Nexus 5K right now, and we're probably going to start looking at the 9Ks as these reach end-of-life.

The hardware that existed pre-5K was replaced before I joined the company.

The initial setup took place before I joined the company.

We used CBTS to assist us with our implementation.

This is a solid, reliable solution, but it is very expensive and it can only scale to a degree.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

We use Cisco Nexus in our data center to aggregate all the systems in our enterprise. Everyone in the company uses it indirectly, so we have 72,000 users. 

The interface is easy to use. It is not much different from iOS, but you can use it on a larger scale in data centers.

We have used Cisco Nexus for several years. 

Nexus works well. It's highly reliable. 

Cisco Nexus is scalable. 

We've contacted Cisco support many times. They always help us fast.

Nexus is straightforward. The time needed to deploy depends on what you're doing and your knowledge of Cisco systems. 

Nexus is a costly solution. However, it's an excellent device, so you expect the price to be high. It has a three-year license. 

I rate Cisco Nexus nine out of 10. I recommend it. 

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. 

For the 9300 switches, we use them specifically for IPv6 routing in this particular instance, although there are plans to deploy them in a more general variety of switch-type use cases.

This specific use case is fairly mundane. A Nexus switch is a nice, standard part that you could reuse elsewhere. The idea was to utilize this to fix a problem.

We have a bigger solution, which also involves Nexus switches in ACI mode. This appliance is kind of the stock gap until then.

We value the combination of performance and experience with Legacy Cisco switching products, including Nexus.

In terms of the context of this deployment, Cisco Nexus did everything it needed to do. 

I'd like to see this be wrapped into ACI. I'll be more comfortable when it's had more deployments. There's more knowledge out there on how to configure it.

The Cisco Nexus is a big change. I'm not currently looking for new features. I am looking to other customers with good experiences deploying in ACI mode.

Of these devices, in particular, the stability is good. Although with the Nexus line generally, we've had a couple of bad experiences recently. 

I have a general concern that Cisco Nexus may be declining. There's a couple of really bad incidents lately. Probably luck of the draw.

The scalability of the solution is well beyond anything I would ever need. Somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 50,000 to 60,000 nodes is our requirement, so not huge from the Cisco perspective.

The technical support with Cisco is sometimes awesome and sometimes terrible. Not all TAC engineers have the same kind of attitude and availability to help solve the problem. 

Unfortunately, I find a necessary skill for Cisco engineers working with Cisco equipment is to know how to handle TAC. If you know how to handle them and you're willing to step up yourself by ensuring that you escalate properly, you can get a good response at TAC.

But if you allow the reverse to happen, you will usually get a bad experience.

Management is in the habit of buying Cisco. I like the product. I don't dissuade them from that.

The initial setup with the Nexus switch is somewhere in the middle. I hate to call a Nexus switch simple, but at the same time, it's got a lot of platform legacy. You can reapply your knowledge from what you've done before. 

I don't call it complex. I don't call it simple either. Somewhere in the middle.

The license for Cisco Nexus is one year to three years, in this case for the SMARTnet. It is a price per unit, in terms of this specific appliance. That's something I could see Cisco doing a better job with, i.e. managing SMARTnet contracts for customers.

Too much of the onus is on the customer to manage their SMARTnet contracts. They always do a bad job at that. It's a miss for the customers because they don't have the protection that they need. It's a miss for Cisco because they don't have the revenue. 

Cisco needs to rely more on its distributors to take on that role, but I don't think they always do.

Start with a business problem that needs solving and a recognition that the current solutions don't meet the needs. Most of our clients are using a solution similar to Nexus already. Generally, amongst my customer base, it's mostly Catalyst and Nexus.

On a scale of one to 10, I would rate this product an eight to nine. Part of that is my recent experience with Nexus overall. My gut instinct is it's probably lower than it was a couple of months back.

Look at Nexus, but also take a look at Catalyst, depending on what it is specifically being used for. Catalyst is probably an easier device, but Nexus at least should be better for a data center. Look at both.