Cisco Wireless Reviews

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. 

I like many of the features that Cisco Wireless has to offer.

Code stability is something that needs to be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless for 10 years.

The technical support is fine.

The price of this product is reasonable.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco Wireless is that they need to know the products. There are a lot of features that you can turn on and off, so they need to know the product itself. It's not as simple as it seems.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is providing network coverage to mobile devices in our company.

I find this solution easy to configure and use.

The coverage should be better.

There should be an option for a wireless bridge that can be used to join two access points.

Technical support takes too long and is something that should be improved.

It would be helpful if Cisco Wireless supported the Internet of Things (IoT).

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about five years.

This is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, and we have more than 10,000 people on-premises who are connected to the cloud using it.

We have had problems with Cisco's technical support, so I would only rate them a five out of ten. They take too long to respond and also too long to resolve the issue.

We are also using Huawei wireless.

For somebody who knows about the configuration beforehand, the initial setup is easy. I can be set up an configured in half an hour.

The suitability of this product depends on the environment and the requirements, as every place has its own circumstances. Generally, I recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Mobility device support. It can provide support for real-time applications, such as VoIP and Video Conferencing over wireless infrastructure.

For industrial IT (sensors, programmed logical controllers, trains, ports, mines) and IT for offices, we can support real-time information, reducing risk for people, speeding up time to market and giving real-time access to information and communications.

This is a good product but some basic configurations were missed such as:

• The bind configuration between a physical port and an IP address
• Health check for authentication/authorization server.

Three years.

No.

No.

Seven out of 10. They are slow to answer.

Yes. We switched due to company decisions.

Complex. The solution works for beginners with basic implementations.

It is an expensive solution.

Yes, Aerohive and Aruba.

We use the solution for laptops, smartphones, and for both intranet and internet communication.

Some of the features I find valuable are the FlexConnect and overall it is a good global solution.

Before deploying a wireless solution, you have to read and plan every role, every windows system, put in your access point, and then make the audit. This solution is not the best one to do this. We use another solution that is called Eko. In the future, if this solution could have better auditing capabilities it would be better.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is stable.

We have added some access points for conductivity which have integrated well and have been fine scalability-wise, we have not done other types of scaling. Our whole company is using this solution.

You can have a setup that is simple but my company is big, with a lot of regulations to adhere to. I would say out we had a difficult installation but this is not directly related to the solution but more related to the policy of our company.

I would recommend others to use this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

The FlexConnect feature is the most valuable.

It would be great if it is compatible with other products.

I have been using this solution for almost six years.

Until now, it has been stable in spite of some upgrades.

It is scalable. Our clients are large companies.

Their technical support is great.

We worked with Cisco Prime and Cisco Controller.

The initial setup was quite straightforward.

It is quite simple. Even if you are not a wireless network expert, you will be able to use it by doing some research. It is not difficult or super complex.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten. I am satisfied with this solution.

A couple of features stood out: the most important feature was the ease of installation. Coming from another network vendor background I was surprised at how easy the controller was to configure. The ability to build policies based on device and application type is very powerful. The controller has a built in best practice analysis engine that will not only give your setup a best practice score, but also automatically change settings to increase the score. The controller automatically implements advanced Cisco wireless features like Cisco clean air, coverage hole detection, client load balancing and band steering amongst other things.

Business systems reach was significantly increased through extensive wireless coverage throughout the entire company head office building (5 stories). The technology also enabled the client business to safely provide internet access to guests, through the Cisco lobby administrator portal, which the receptionist manages without intervention from the IT department.

Rack mount brackets must be automatically included in the cost. Aesthetically the 2504 chassis has room for improvement. Product is not the cheapest on the market, can be more competitively priced.

This solution has been running for a year. We have dual Cisco 2504 wireless controllers for high availability (software version 8.1.102.0). Managing 40x 1702 Cisco wireless access points.

The issue we encountered was enabling radius authentication for the employee wireless network. Most of the issue was Windows server related though.

The two controllers running side by side was extensively tested by die client: during production the primary controller was unplugged and within a few seconds the access points registered to the secondary controller. The client even went as far as unplugging various access points to test if the coverage hole detection worked, and was not disappointed. There was never a need to restart the controllers or any of the access points.

The project was sufficiently scoped from the beginning which prevented any scalability problems.

Good.

Good, provided there is a maintenance contract in place.

The previous solution consisted of a wireless controller and 15 access points. There was a lot of labour hours that had to be wasted on fine tuning the wireless settings, the wireless network just did not meet the clients expectations. The issues were escalated to the distributor and the vendor directly, which made resources available on site but still took days to get stable.

Very straightforward. The new software version introduced a wizard which guides you through most of the initial configurations in a few simple steps.

Working as a solutions architect for an IT service provider I did the scoping and implementation for the client.

The pricing on the Cisco devices can seem high, but compare apples with apples and it will become clear that Cisco is not that expensive. The controllers need to have licenses for the access points that it manages, so plan ahead and have enough licenses ready for the amount of access points in the environment.

• HP MSM 720 wireless controller.
• Aruba instant access points with built in controllers

The underlying wired infrastructure is important, make sure it has enough capacity so avoid causing bottlenecks on the wireless network. If possible keep the network on a specific vendor for ease of management and support.

I like that it's a standard wireless solution that can be rolled out throughout the campus. I also like that it is easy to manage.

It is a good end-to-end solution.

Room for improvement wise, the wireless coverage of Cisco's equipment could be better for the price position. That is, I think that the radius for the coverage could be better to make it worth the price that we pay for it.

It could be more reliable as well.

It is not a cheap solution, and the lead time can be long.

I've been using this solution for the past three years.

The stability or reliability is good. The performance is not that good.

The scalability is okay. It's limited by the controller though. If we need to expand the solution, we need to buy new controllers, which will make the solution more expensive.

At this site, we have around 2000 users. Cisco is used everyday.

Technical support is good. How you end up rating the support, whether it is good or maybe just satisfactory, depends on the type of support that you have purchased from Cisco. That is, if you want good support, then you'll have to pay more than that for normal support.

Before we chose Cisco wireless, we evaluated it based on Extreme Networks. We switched because Extreme Networks support is not good here in Malaysia.

The initial setup is quite complex and took about three months.

For deployment and maintenance, we have four staff members.

We are an integrator, and we implemented it ourselves.

Cisco is not a cheap solution. Their licensing cost is higher than that for others.

If you want to upgrade it in the future, the licensing cost will be high. I think that in the future, Cisco will be based more on software rather than hardware. This means that you will have to pay more for licensing. 

The Cisco solution has been quite reliable because it's more hardware based, but now because it's becoming more software based, the hardware might cost slightly less. However, because of COVID and the shortage of chips, this does not really apply.

Considering other solutions, I don't think Aruba is any better than Cisco. Aruba and Cisco both have a lot of range. Similarly, Ruckus also has this level of range; however, Ruckus is more specialized in wireless solutions. That's why for incoming projects, we have chosen Ruckus, which is more popular and easier to support as well.

If you are implementing a wireless solution, you can actually use any wired solution while running the wireless solution on top of it. If you are only looking at a wireless setup, then you might be better off choosing Ruckus. However, if you need an end-to-end solution, Cisco is a better option.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven.