Cisco Nexus Reviews

From a data center implementation, with respect to competition from your data, there isn't really a product recovery for the different tests other than Cisco Nexus. For example, if you take Multi-tenancy for the data center, it's something which, I think, only Cisco has. There are some implementations from HP, but I think it's limited there.

One of the biggest challenges, which I see is that there's a constant evolution in the product. For example, our configuration is based on what is known as traditional data center implementation. Today there is the ACI deployment and to implement, to migrate from one technology to another, that's challenging both from a configuration perspective and also from a cost perspective. We have had a problem in an order of a batch of optics, which is practically failing. So that was about the average of optics, which caused us quite some problem.

We have been using Cisco Nexus Switches since 2017 or about four years.

This year, we have only experienced the problem once. Of course, it was not identified and I had a problem with OTB wiring and we experienced it just once. I stayed in kind of generic configuration, that's why we're like Cisco, because they are significantly stable.  If you don't try to do something fancy and they don't get problems.

We have also the advance services of Cisco to support us there. I think they are still better than some competition. But, I think, their quality has decreased. In the past week they were not very good. They have had better quality.

We work with our account manager to negotiate a good price, so overall, I think the pricing is fair.

I would recommend Cisco Nexus Switches. Of course, there is the ACI deployment and the challenges there. It is always a challenge to keep up with the technology. They are just constantly doing some updates and changes and becoming the modern marketer is challenging. So in the past fiscal year for data center and every JSS deployment things are much more complicated. I would give it an eight on a scale of ten, because of the problem which we had. I'm just thinking in respect of competition.

It helped us have fewer physical interfaces by being able to share it with multiple virtual contacts. By doing that, we can have fewer devices and fewer physical interfaces, yet retain a more extensive logical setup. So it helps us to have a smaller footprint.

The most valuable feature of the 7700 series is probably that it lets you have multi-context, and also VPC setup, where you have two logical devices that are still separate in terms of management planes but have shared virtual port channels.

They should make sure that the back address auto is baselined. I think it might even be baselined, so it might be that one of our team members had messed that up, but it just wasn't a very straightforward command. You should have multi-context, multi-port channel enabled on the underlay of the Firepower. The way the Firepower firewalls work is they have a management plane, and then you make the virtual ASAs on the Firepower, where you're assigning multiple interfaces or core channels on there. have fewer devices and fewer physical interfaces, yet retain a more extensive logical setup.

It has been very stable so far.

It has been very scalable, from what we've seen.

The few times we have had to talk to technical support it's been pretty decent.

The previous solution we used was the Catalyst 6506 series. We switched to 7706 at that time because it was pretty much comparable to that. It was either a 6506 or moving to a 6807, which was the Catalyst's next series for the next device. The difference between the Catalyst and the Nexus was that Catalyst was doing VSS, where you kind of had two physical switches acting as one logical switch. We had had some issues, especially with upgrades of VSS, so we were trying to avoid using VSS. The 7706 is just more stable than what the Nexus 9000 was at the time we were purchasing this. The Nexus 9000 wasn't fleshed out enough yet to use as the core, so it just made sense to go with the 7706 instead.

The initial setup was pretty complex, mostly because of our environment, having to do multi-context. That's where you have a lot of different logical routes that are in one physical device, and it can get kind of complex trying to think about how to set all that up. You really have to whiteboard it out a lot.

We talked with a lot of vendors, such as Juniper, FortiGate, and some of the other players. Cisco was our chosen solution, because of the level of support and familiarity we had. A lot of us trained in Cisco.

When we were purchasing this, it was the best solution. Now, you might want to look at the Nexus 9000 solution, or maybe the Catalyst 9000 series. You might consider your environment and see what you need. Do you need personal contacts and device management? Or do you need devices acting as one switch for easy management? It just depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for more of the software-defined stuff, and this is going to be in your data center, or maybe you want ACIs, then you're obviously going to be looking at Nexus 9000 there. It just depends on your situation.

I would rate this solution as a nine or ten of ten.

This solution has allowed our organization to grow. Our last platform was the legacy Cisco 6509, which did not have virtualization built in. We now have one box that does multiple services.

The most valuable feature is the flexibility that it has with the layer-two switching.

Its speed, as well as the ability to expand it, are also very valuable.

There are still bugs in the system that need to be fixed.

Technical support could be better.

This solution still hinders on some of the old technology base. It seems like bugs are still being brought in as customers are changing how they want to connect or how fast they're trying to connect stuff.

The scalability of this solution is ok. Everything can be a little bit better on scalability, but it does an ok job.

Technical support for this solution is middle-tier. It could be better.

Sometimes you get people that know about the products themselves, and the hardware, but don't understand my use case or a customer's use case. They understand it from a product platform, but not real-world actions.

We were using the Legacy Cisco 6509, but it did not have virtualization built in.

The initial setup of this solution is pretty straightforward.

If you came from the Legacy OS, it is easy to access and move around, even though the command lines are a little bit different.

We used an integrator to assist us with our deployment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

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.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is as a core fiber switch.

We upgraded from a 6509 unit to a 9504. We got increased bandwidth, faster performance, and newer software which has improved our organization. 

We use Cisco Nexus as a switch that houses all of our fiber connections.

They should make it easier to update the code on it. Upgrading should also be easier. 

The stability of the solution is very strong. No downtime with it. No problems. No issues.

It scales to just about any use that we needed to throw at it. It's very accommodating.

The solution's technical support is perfect. We have had no problems with it.

We switched because our current product was end-of-life and falling out of support.

The initial setup was straightforward. It has a simple routing protocol, not very many static routes.

We used a certified reseller for deployment. Our experience with them was excellent.

We have seen ROI. 

We didn't have any other vendors in mind. Cisco is the product that we've used quite heavily, so it made sense to stay with them.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product a ten. Cisco Nexus is very solid and easy to use. 

Go with Nexus, you won't regret it.

The primary use case is for the core network infrastructure of our data centers. We use Nexus and the FEX line of products to interconnect all of the server infrastructure, as well as external connections that come in from our outside vendors. 

This solution streamlines how we have to configure things because we can do everything from one device, whereas if we had individual devices we would have to go to each one and configure them manually.

The most valuable features are the flexibility of the blade infrastructure, as well as the FEX integration.

I would love to see Active/Active FEX connectivity, which is enhanced vPC, where we could also do a vPC from a server in that type of configuration. It's still a limitation that's been carried over from the 7K that I'm surprised is still absent from the 9K. Including this would give us the highest level of redundancy without risking having orphaned ports, which we do have at times.

At this point, I am happy with the stability of this solution. It has been better than the 7K line.

The scalability seems pretty solid. We're not a very large company, so we don't max out any of the limitations of the solution.

I have not dealt directly with technical support, although I have received feedback from my engineers. What little support we've needed has worked out very well.

I have nearly ten years of experience with the Nexus 7K line. Our change was primarily driven by the company's requirement to maintain our equipment. With the 7K line going out of support shortly, we had to move to a supported platform to meet regulatory requirements.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. The similarities between the 9K and the older 7K helped with the transition. It didn't complicate things because the functionalities are so similar that it was easy enough to transfer our current configuration over. We were even able to make slight adjustments for improvement.

We used CompuNet to assist us with the implementation.

The engineer was great, but the project manager wasn't so great. He didn't really manage the project. I came in late, in the middle of the project, and ended up putting it on hold because there was no plan. They were trying to implement within a couple of weeks. So, I had to put it on hold for about three months before we actually were able to move our core over to the new 9K infrastructure.

With the implementation of the FEX infrastructure, it is going to save us a lot of time. We are incapable of implementing new connectivity for new hardware devices without having the ability to manage multiple devices.

Besides, the ROI for this solution is that it gets me off of the audit list.

We only have a yearly support contract, as we do not use any of the subscription-based functions at this time.

We only evaluated solutions by Cisco.

With the feature set we are using now, I cannot think of any major changes that we would require. In the future, as we move into a hybrid cloud strategy, I may see opportunities for improvement.

There are still limitations within the product.

My advice for anybody researching this solution is to make sure that it meets your requirements. From a stability standpoint, it works, but not every feature set that you may need or require is there, so you have to look at it closely.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution is used as a switch in our data center.

This solution has made our environment more modular.

The most valuable feature is its reliability.

The technical support for this solution needs to be improved.

This solution is pretty good with respect to stability.

Technical support is not very good.

Prior to using this solution, we used Avaya switches. We experienced some hardware failures so we wanted to get a more reliable product. This is why we changed to the Cisco Nexus line. We also wanted more modularity, because when a part failed with our previous solution, you had to replace the whole switch.

The initial setup for this solution is a bit complex. Not just anybody without the technical know-how can set it up.

We had a specialist from Cisco Professional Services assist us with the implementation. Their service was all right.

The return on investment has been pretty good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.