Cisco Wireless Reviews

In general, for the wireless LAN controller, Cisco is coming up with new solutions every day, they're improving their products. Networking is getting serious, becoming easier to be done for clients, configurations are becoming easier to be done. 

Cisco 5500 Wireless Controller, for example, has a number of features: 

• supports a lot of access points
• better GUI
• better management
• better control. 

If an issue comes up, the GUI of this particular wireless controller is well supported, very good to use.

Recently, one of our clients had a problem with their wireless connection at their location. The problem was that they were using the old series for the access points. We suggested that they use Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Point because, if you go to the actual data sheet of the access point, there are way more lines, the radio is better, the broadcasting system is better, the control is better.

Maybe the actual Cisco products can also be made cloud-based, though it would be competing with the Meraki. But I think that would improve the market. It would improve configuration. It would help the clients a lot, because if everything was cloud-based, we could just guide the clients through the situation, so they could do the configurations on their own. It would help the clients to save money as well.

Everything is fine. Cisco products are perhaps the most reliable on the market. While deploying, we have never faced an issue.

Different issues come up for the different companies because they need different things done in their networks, so that depends on the company. But in the deployment, hardware-wise, there isn't any problem. There is always room for the improvement but, from my perspective, no problems with stability.

I did not switch to Cisco. We suggest products based on the clients' needs. It depends on the different scenarios we come across. It depends on the clients, what their requirements are and what their budgeted is, because Cisco is more on the expensive side, as compared to Aruba, but I must say Cisco's quality is unmatched, for sure.

It’s a standard thing. For the switches it's a standard thing, for the router it's a standard thing, same with the wireless LAN controller or the access points. It's not difficult. For a person who's doing it for first time, it's going to be complicated, but once you get used to it, it’s pretty much the same thing all the time.

My suggestion would be to go with Cisco products.

Scalability

• Multiple SSID's
• Ability to offer WI-FI to guest in a secure environment

None.

Two years. (WLC 5508)

Older WAP's can be an issue as the firmware makes them problematic. Requires upgrading the WLC firmware to see units properly.

None.

None.

8 out of 10.

8 out of 10.

Several. Cisco is more scalable and actually less costly over time.

Fairly straightforward - need to understand the Cisco way of breaking things out but otherwise no issues.

We implemented it in-house.

Approximately $20,000 with no additional costs.

• Meraki
• SonicWALL

Understand your need. Let the need drive the purchase not the other way around.

• Certificate based authentication
• ACL for Guest

Right now more than 90% of our employees connect on wireless only. That minimizes a huge CapEx on LAN infrastructure. Users can connect from any of the offices of banglalink. Roaming is the biggest advantage we have got so far. For security purposes, certificate based authentication ensures that only banglalink employees can connect to those SSID.

• Reporting
• Active Passive Failover on Controller

More than four years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Good.

Good.

We previously used an Aruba solution and we switched because Cisco had a flexible deployment model, it is easy to operate, and has a stable OS.

Initial setup was, of course challenging. However, with the vendor, we worked hard on troubleshooting issues. For example, redundancy during controller failover was very challenging as the AP was taking long time to join with controller.

We implemented it in-house.

I think we got our ROI within a year.

We have two controllers in our 55 offices with more than 175 APs. It costs us around 100k. Currently we don't buy any support from OEM or a vendor, and we keep all necessary APs in stock. For the controller it costs us around 3k yearly.

We compared it to Aruba which was our existing solution.

Fantastic product for an indoor wireless solution. Smooth seamless AP handover, excellent Tech support, integration with other peripherals (AD, Cert server, SIEM etc.) and stable hardware. These are the reasons you should choose this product.

We moved to the solution after we had some hardware issues. 

We use it with laptops for wireless connection via the cloud.

The performance is very good. If you compare it to Aruba, we find the ability to roam much better.

The functionality has been very good.

The stability is very good overall.

It's easy to configure.

I've found it to be quite secure.

We've recently had hardware issues which have caused us some problems. 

There are some models that have more coverage than ours. We'd like for them to work towards providing more coverage across models. 

The solution is a bit expensive.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. It hasn't been too long. 

We've had a good experience with the stability of this product. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable for the most part I don't recall it crashing or freezing. 

We have about 90 users of the solution in our office at this time. 

We don't really deal with support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also use Meraki as well.

I'm aware of Aruba's capabilities and find Cisco to be better. However, it costs a bit more than Aruba.

The installation process isn't too difficult.

I cannot speak to exactly how long it took to deploy. I can't remember the length of time off-hand. 

Three people worked on the implementation. They were a manager and two technicians. 

While we did have some access to information to help us, we mostly handled the implementation process on our own.

The pricing is on the high side. For example, it is more expensive to use than Aruba.

We have a license, however, I do not manage it. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, it depends on the capabilities of the end-user. Some may find it difficult. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are pleased with it so far.

I mainly use Cisco Wireless for the core switch and access switch, the router, the firewall, and the access point.

The most valuable feature is the firewall.

This solution is very expensive, which means we often have to go for cheaper options instead.

I've been working with this solution for twenty-two years.

This solution is very stable, we don't have any problems with it.

We've had no problems with scalability - the intra-network is about 20 gigabytes on our campus without any issues.

I'm very satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The initial setup was very, very simple and took three months and three weeks for the whole campus.

We used Jimma University as a consultant and had a good experience with them.

Because of Cisco's expense, we also use Huawei and Ruckus devices, and the interoperability between these three vendors is good. I would give this solution a score of ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for networking; networking - for WiFi coverage. We don't use it for anything else. 

So far, overall, it's been good.

The solution has been stable. The performance is good.

We find it easy to use. 

The product offers educational licenses that are priced very reasonably.

The installation process is very easy. It's quick to deploy and you can do it in less than a day.

The solution could be more stable.

We've been using the solution for more than one year. 

The performance of Cisco is very good. It's a stable product for the most part. That said, there is always room for improvement. 

The solution seems to be scalable and meets our needs. We have about 150 people using the product in our organization.

Technical support from Cisco is great. they are helpful and responsive and we are very satisfied with the level of support they offer. 

We used to use HP. We've used them for over ten years and we are still using them.

We have found the implementation to be simple and straightforward. It's not difficult or complex. It may take up to a day to deploy, however, usually, it takes less than that. the deployment is very fast.

You only need one person (or at a maximum, two) to handle deployment and maintenance. We have systems engineers that handle it. 

We use the product under an educational license, and therefore, we find the solution to be reasonably priced.

While I cannot recall the exact version number we are on, we are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the company IT advisor and manager.

We find this solution very cost effective. We are using the WAP121 model which has good manageability, and stability. 

We sometimes have issues with user load. We have close to 12 users and we have performance issues, especially when we are on video calls. There are lags and connectivity issues in those situations and the throughput is not that good. From our end, performance and connectivity could be improved.

I'd like to see features such as app control, access control, and some level of a firewall feature at the level of the access points, features that are available at the firewall level, so that we can have security and manageability at WiFi level.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We have a local support team and whenever we face issues they are very supportive. 

The initial setup was very easy. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

I'm a senior technical consultant and we are service providers. 

Cisco Wireless is scalable and very stable. They offer good technical support. 

I'd like to have better voice security. What they offer now is not good enough to protect us from an attack or a hacker. The solution requires a firewall body inside a wireless controller so that we can define a few more things and prevent attacks. 

I've been using this product for 12 years. 

The stability of this product is good. 

Scalability is good with Cisco Wireless - we have close to 500 users at just one of our sites and no problems. 

Technical support could be improved but it's fair and they do a reasonably good job supporting us when we have issues. 

All solutions in this market are more or less the same, it's just that Cisco is less cost-effective which is why we're currently testing HP. I've also worked on Aruba Access Points and HP switching systems and find them easier to configure and manage, while still providing good performance. 

People need to be aware that everything is going wireless in the next couple of years and it's a good idea to move to wireless now so that there's a familiarity with how it all works. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10.