Cisco Nexus Reviews

Mostly what we use Cisco Nexus for is in our access layer and distribution networks on our campus.

I'm the person that makes the decisions on purchasing. I have a manager above me that gives a budget, but I decide on products and spending. Some of it is previous experience with the hardware. We also trust our partners and the people that deploy it for their recommendations. We're looking across model lines. 

We're a large enterprise. We're nationwide. We tend to have limitations within a certain scope. We purchase so that we can keep our costs down and also support anything we want.

There are some limitations and we have to pick from the list of available options. 

Some of the previous Cisco equipment that we've had, i.e. the 2948's and 3560's, are similar.

The most valuable feature of this solution is stability. We have a pretty large campus. We need the redundancy options and diverse paths that are required. Also, some of the capacity that the Cisco Nexus has.

The only major improvement required would be stability. With some of the products we had before, we had a little more downtime than we would like.

We had to spend more time either dealing with parts that needed to be replaced, or issues that we had in configurations that we needed to upgrade. The Cisco Nexus is a lot more stable and doesn't have all of the bugs when it has to do with upgrades.

Some of the fiber optic capacity increases will be good because we're already looking at 40 GB and 100 GB at a reasonable price. 

Fiber capacity is going to be something we're starting to look on our roadmap, how do we increase what we have available.

We use Cisco Nexus and haven't had any problems. We've been happy with it.

Scalability for us is great. We can use Cisco Nexus for what we need it to do. In the future, I don't see any obstacles this would create. It works great.

Cisco always does a great job. Sometimes it's difficult to get to the level of engineer that you need for support. Overall, the experience that we get is fine. Eventually, we'll be able to get the support that we require to get the issue fixed if there's a problem.

Cisco Nexus is straightforward for deployment. If we had to have any kind of hands-on support, we could access them. If you want to you can always pay for someone to come for services. 

We may need to have services on site to be able to help us with deployment. We've used that in the past. For some of this equipment, we have enough experience within our team to be able to deploy it. Then if we run into problems, we can just call in for help.

We have a contractor that already has contracted out to do that work locally in our facility. They take care of all that for us. Our experience with that partner was good. We're happy with them. They did a good job.

From an improvement on an availability metric perspective, we have seen ROI.

We do yearly licensing. I don't directly pay for Cisco Nexus. Enterprise, above me, pays for all our licensing across the United States. I know we do pay a yearly fee for our portion.

In our enterprise organization, we're a little bit different than the government. We buy into the economy of scale. Since we have centers all across the United States, we try to centralize and enterprise manage our equipment. We tend to go with one vendor and that decision is above me.

I don't get to evaluate the days of local control within our infrastructure. We moved away from that about 10 years ago so that we can take advantage of economies of scale.

I would say take advantage of the resources that Cisco has in regards to some of the marketing and sales reps. They can provide you at least a guide on the options.

Sometimes you get locked in on a particular product, even though it's still biased. Within the company, opportunities exist to talk about other options. 

A lot of times Cisco will bring a technical engineer, it's not just a sales rep trying to sell something. They'll bring their technical representatives that understand the environment and consider other options within the brand.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at a nine. I'm not sure I know everything about it to give it a ten. 

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.

We use this solution mainly for the data center and or a yacht. They were used as core switches on a three-layer network.

They were the core level for a 90-meter yacht. They were connected with a fiber single-mode backbone.

When it comes to data centers, Cisco Nexus is the best.

The flexibility and configuration could be better. It needs to be improved.

It is not as reliable as Catalyst.

I have been working with Cisco Nexus for 15 years.

My experience with the stability of Nexus was that there was a failure with the power supply. I had to replace the hardware component related to the power supply.

I have had fewer issues with stability when using Catalyst.

Cisco support is always the same. It doesn't matter if you are looking for support for Wi-Fi, or any other product they offer, they will figure out the solution. 

The support is always the same, they are fast and professional, even if you don't have a valid service contract.

Using Nexus was a request from the customer and we installed it based on their request.

We would have preferred to install Catalyst. They are more flexible and the configuration of the high availability features are better than Nexus.

Nexus is the best solution for the data center and not as a solution for a moving environment, such as a yacht, that would have issues related to the power supply. This is why Catalyst would have been better than Nexus.

With my experience with Catalyst, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

The installation was not as easy as it was with Catalyst. The configuration was more difficult.

They have a similar CLI, but different components and features.

We need a team of four to maintain this solution. The team consists of one manager, two technicians, and one installer.

We purchased this solution as per the client's request. We completed the installation with their requested license and features.

We did not evaluate other solutions for our client.  

We didn't spend time researching the best solution for the client. They had a particular method and requested Cisco Nexus specifically.

My recommendation would be with Cisco Catalyst. I prefer Catalyst over Nexus because of its flexibility and reliability.

I only used Nexus one time and don't have a good comparison. I would rate it a seven 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.

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.