Cisco Wireless Reviews

To provide better WiFi reception in our office suite, while using fewer APs to cover the space.

Ability to handle a high volume of large data transfers, incorporating office maps for placement and MDM control.

• Coverage
• Mesh design
• PoE
• Web interface access
• Simplicity and aesthetics

The model we are using (Meraki MR16) has already been discontinued, for a better product line, so I believe the improvements needed have already been addressed.

The coverage range is far superior to the model that we were using.

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.

From a technical perspective, the ease of centralized management and provisioning. Also the possibility of a single breakout point to the LAN which helps confine user traffic without additional setup.

Before 2008 all hosts were connected to the wired infrastructure. Introducing a wireless infrastructure is probably the biggest single improvement in the network area we have had over the last few years. For example, employees can access their documents during a meeting, suppliers can give a presentation, and visitors can access the internet, etc. without going through the process of wiring and reconfiguring switches.

The monitoring system has room for improvement. All the pieces of data are collected but it is not always easy or possible to present it the way you like it.

For about six years with the initial single controller setup. We moved to a dual controller setup in active/standby mode two years ago.

Cisco WLC 5508 with Cisco Wireless Control System and 2600/3600 series access points

We did not have any issues with the deployment of the single controller setup. Later on, with the deployment of the second controller, we have had some minor issues which were swiftly resolved by the supplier team with some help from the vendor.

No issues so far.

The product is scaled for 500 APs. At this moment we have little under 450 APs connected without any scalability issues.

8/10 for both the vendor and supplier.

9/10 for both the vendor and supplier.

No, the Cisco WLC is our first wireless solution.

Initial setup was straightforward. Then again, initially we started with only the very basic capabilities of the Cisco WLC.

Both implementations were performed by a supplier team with support from an in-house team for integration into the local network. I would rate the expertise of the supplier team a solid 8/10.

We are a non-profit organisation. ROI was not the main drive to buy this product as manageability and reliability were.

We are bound to a supplier and therefore can choose from a limited number of vendors. We use Cisco for our wired equipment, it is then reasonably to first have a look a Cisco‘s wireless solution.

The Cisco WLC has many features. Plan carefully which to use before you start to implement.

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.

Cisco Wireless is quite convenient for mobile and laptop access. 

We use a Cisco product called Room Kit for meetings. It would be nice if Cisco could improve that. I would also like a cloud solution.

I've been using Cisco for about three years, but I've worked with Ruckus and other wireless solutions for about five. 

Cisco stability is okay. We call support when we have downtime.

Our company has no more than 500 users, so scalability isn't an issue for us.

Cisco support is quite good. I can contact them, and they'll reply.

The initial setup on the first level was straightforward, but the second-level setup was complex.

We had help from a Cisco reseller. 

I rate Cisco Wireless six out of 10. My advice to people implementing Cisco Wireless is to find the right reseller. Find one who can deliver the service you need. That's the most important thing because we might not know the product, so we need support from time to time.

Cisco Wireless is for wireless networking. We use WLAN to connect endpoints wirelessly to mobile phones, tablets, and laptops that have WiFi protocol enabled. We have more than 50 employees using this solution.

Cisco Wireless is one of the more stable products so their products are scalable.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for about six years now.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

It's easy to set up if you have the technical knowledge. It's not a user-based deployment where you ask the user to go and deploy. You need to have some technical understanding of the solutions before you deploy them. On that level, it's easy to deploy.

Deployment requires network and hardware engineers but the number depends on the kind of deployment. It depends on the project server. Sometimes it's one or two. If it's a big project, I'll tend to use it more.  But broadly speaking, in terms of domain, you need network engineers, hardware engineers, and network architects.

Cisco is costlier relative to other solutions.

I would rate Cisco Wireless nine out of 10.

The solution is primarily used to connect users to the internet. It's the main product we use for this purpose.

The performance is very good. 

The solution has proven to be quite stable over the years. It's one of its most valuable aspects.

The scalability is very good.

We've found the technical support to be helpful and responsive.

If it was even more stable, that would be ideal. The stability is good, however, it's always something that can be improved upon. 

Older versions are complex to configure and implement.

The pricing of the product is quite high compared to other solutions.

I started using Cisco in 2012. I've been using it for a long time. It's been about nine years or so at this point.

We've found the stability to be very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's very good overall. 

You can scale the product easily. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

More than 100 users are using it in our organization.

I'm not sure if we have plans to continue to use it or not. That's more of a management decision. However, I would be happy to keep using Cisco, as it is a very good product.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. The service is good. I'd say that the response time is fast, and the support is professional. We've been quite happy with the level of service we are provided.

I also have experience with Ruckus, Ubiquiti, and Huawei wireless solutions.

The older product has an installation that is complex, and not easy to configure. This is the disadvantage of older Cisco products. It's possible that they've sorted this out and newer versions are much easier to configure. The wireless controller on older devices is just very difficult. With the older versions, you need to tag some columns, for example. It's just a more complex process.

I was not the person who originally configured the solution and therefore can't speak to how long the deployment actually took.

The solution is quite expensive. It doesn't offer the best pricing on the market. There are cheaper options.

We are customers and end-users. We use it in our organization. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We are using an older version. I do not have the version number on hand.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a nine. It's very reliable and we've been very happy with its overall capabilities so far. It does not disappoint.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I have Cisco routers, switches, firewalls and wireless access points installed on my corporate network.

They are good, but my observation is that their signal strength and range is not that good. But their manageability is very good.

Manageability.

Signal strength and range.