Cisco Wireless Reviews

We have an ISE solution, WiFi controller, Access Points, and a wifi controller. We have to integrate all of these components with each other and we do that with Cisco's solution and a local Cisco partner. The performance is better than before. We had an issue with the phone wifi but no other real issues. It fully integrates with ISE. 

We work in energy so we manage electric networks and gas networks. Someone had to move across the building and keep contact with the operator onsite for when there is an issue with the network so, for us sometimes it is a problem with gas. It's really important for us to stay connected with phone wifi. We have to study a lot of scenarios because if we have a data center on a remote site and if we lose the connection to the data center the telephone and the wifi has to continue to work. We connect to Cisco wifi and we're able to solve the issue. Even in emergencies, we can respond to a customer's needs. 

When you integrate a network access control with authentication with an ISE engine it's really complicated to put in place. Even if you're only using Cisco products you have a new algorithm and you have old material. For us, it's complicated because we have to maintain old parts or devices. We purchase new devices and we maintain several SSID which is not really recommended by Cisco. They prefer to have one and to dispatch based on the condition.

It's stable. Although we have had an issue but it's not related to Cisco technology. It's to do with the position of the access points. They move it and it's good. They don't like to see a box so they move it which is an issue. 

The initial setup was quite easy. We have a very good relationship with our integrator and our integrator has a good relationship with Cisco. The integrator that installs Cisco is quite knowledgeable about the technology. They are trained and have a good relationship with their tech. We cannot be experts in each domain and we have to be supported by an integrator.

I would rate it a seven out of ten and I would recommend this solution. 

Our client is a manufacturer that uses Cisco Wireless to provide WiFi coverage for the entire factory. 

We implemented Cisco Wireless two years ago.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

Setting up Cisco Wireless isn't easy, but it's not that difficult, either.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be lower.

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. However, I wouldn't typically recommend Cisco Wireless. In this case, the clients had to implement Cisco to meet a corporate standard. If someone asked me to suggest a good WiFi solution, I would say Ruckus.

I am using Cisco Wireless for wireless networking in an office.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable solution.

From my experience, I have found Cisco Wireless to be scalable.

The solution is good for all business sizes.

We did not have any problems with the technical support.

The initial setup is not complicated, it is simple.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be adjusted down, it is a bit expensive. The solution is worth it for the name and the brand. However, there are more products now in the market that give you the same quality, but at a cheaper price.

Cisco Wireless is one of the top solutions in the market, I would recommend them.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Cisco Wireless can be used for a wireless solution anywhere you require. 

Cisco wireless plus, Cisco routers, or Cisco switches,  when combining them together they work very well. Some of the controller features are available now in the Cisco switches and routers. Most companies have Cisco as their backbone infrastructure and if you have Cisco solutions already in place, you should continue with Cisco.

Overall good featured product.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for more than one year.

Cisco Wireless is highly stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless is good.

We have approximately 300 users using the solution.

The installation is very tiring and painful, the process could be easier.

We have completed the installation of eight access point routers in three days, and this was because of some issues with the infrastructure. We had a customer that had 10 access points and the controller was there. It was simple, it was only a one-day process to put it in, connect with the controller, and it is configured.

Other solutions, such as Oracle and Aruba, tend to be less complicated.

We have two people that are required at a minimum to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There are annual subscriptions to use this solution. I have not been able to understand the licensing of Cisco. Some of the Cisco executives were not able to understand them either. When you first start out the price is zero but when it comes to a time of renewal you have to pay. 

I cannot say the solution should be cheaper because it has a good price point. It is not that they are very expensive, but compared to other solutions available in the market they are expensive. However, they are premium products that make the price suitable for what benefits you receive.

I have evaluated Oracle and Aruba solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide enterprise wireless solutions for employees. We're a system integration provider, and we have a number of customers. Our customers deploy our wireless solutions in an active-standby mode for better network stability. We mostly have customers who have standalone wireless controllers.

I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible.

In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year. Cisco is the defacto brand in wireless technology, and they're a little bit behind. They need to introduce some AI features so we can introduce the customer to these new features.

Some training will help because Cisco's new offering, 9800, requires a lot of hands-on experience. This is because the Cisco 9800 controller is new compared to the previous models, like 2504 and 3504. It requires more hands-on experience to get familiar with the terminologies used in 9800. This is because there are some AP profiles and site profiles, and all these things we aren't familiar with. It's a good tool.

I've been implementing Cisco Wireless for the last five years.

Cisco Wireless is obviously very stable, and there's no doubt about that. When you go for Airwave, it's very stable. The new IOx is going to be stable, and we're deploying it for a couple of customers.

You can deploy it for whatever your user wants and their AP count. It's very good when it comes to scalability.

Cisco technical support is great. Cisco is based in Texas and provides technical support in any manner. Cisco provides support to customers who require it for updates or break-fix IT.
Support is wonderful. We haven't had a problem.

It's easy to set up and implement this solution. For a basic implementation, you can deploy it within two or three hours. This is for a basic deployment for publishing SSID and testing. At a granular level, you may need a week to deploy this solution. This is because, in wireless scenarios, you need to do tests and try different testing scenarios. It's a very good basic solution for deploying to the cloud.

From a pricing point of view, it's a little bit expensive compared to competitors like Aruba and others. But the product is also very promising and very stable. The hardware is wonderful. As a system integrator, it's okay, but you'll probably see it as expensive as a customer.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.

Most of our clients are in the office or on campus and they don't like to use cables so they use Wireless. We are partners with Cisco and our customers ask us which kind of product to use, we also have access to Cisco Advisor so we advise our clients to use Cisco Wireless. 

We also use a Cisco AP in our office and it is more secure than other devices so the accretion system is stronger than others.

Cisco Wireless is mostly stable with a low downrate and the signal rate is good. It is also easy to use. 

One of our customers complained about the ripple, that some of the data was incorrect. We opened a ticket and brought it to their attention that maybe some of the data was not correct. As of now, it has been two months since we opened the ticket and the issue still hasn't been resolved. 

It is stable. 

It is scalable. We can easily upgrade. We have around fifty users and we require two engineers for maintenance. It's used on a daily basis.

Our clients on the university campus have a plan to increase their users.

Their technical support is okay. It depends on the issue that you're experiencing. Sometimes they take too long. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

We also looked at Rocket Software. 

I would advise someone considering this product to use it. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten because it has easy digital effects, it's easy to use and, has good stability. 

There are many valuable features including security, availability, scalability, integration With Cisco products, WEB Portal for guest users, and Cleanair.

The main improvement was the mobility of Notebooks, Tablets, SmartPhones and Warehouse functions.

Management, and Monitoring features need to be improved and the inclusion of a Cloud-based solution.

4 years

Remote APs cannot work without Main Controller when using 802.1x Authentication.

No issues encountered.

No issues were encountered.

It was OK! We had some problems and always checked them with the TAC.

We used MOTOROLA/SYMBOL. It is an solution with no innovation and less features than Cisco Wireless Solution.

No, It was simple.

I am an consultant and I implement for our clients.

Motorola and Aruba.

That is a good solution, pay attention on Compatibility Matrix with some APs.

Cisco Wireless FlexConnect mode is for branches where the traffic can be switched locally. There is centralized switching for the corporate side where the wireless controller will be in the headquarters, and the branches will only have access points. We have the flexibility to use Cisco's FlexConnect for the branches and centralized switching for the corporate network. Combining these feature ensures the traffic flow for the wireless is being controlled and provides the best wireless scenario for the branches. You don’t need to go to the controller each and every time.

Cisco Wireless technology allows us to logically segregate networks, to segregate the traffic between multiple types of endpoint devices, connected to the network. For example, corporate laptops are connected to one network, corporate iPhones will go through a different network.

With Cisco Wireless we have DNA technology for the frequency in which it operates, so that in case of any frequency interference it can look for and switch to another frequency, where there no interference.

Another feature of Cisco Wireless is that we are able to operate APs in multiple frequencies by grouping the APs into multiple groups, so we can operate the wireless in one group at 2.4 gigahertz and the other group at 5 gigahertz. This allows us to group the APs based on the business case or on the bandwidth.

There are a couple of shortcomings in Cisco Wireless right now. I don't see a policy model for the wireless technology solution. If Cisco could bring the wireless architecture around with the controls, it would lead to being able to fine-tune the configuration a little better.

Cisco Wireless' stability is quite good as of now. The recent APs are coming with a backbone of up to 5 MBPS throughput, and that is quite okay.

The scalability is good.

The technical support is good.

We need to do a site survey, AP placement, and wireless configuration: Which are we going to configure, how are we going to get it authenticated, how will we go into control? So we need to have a plan. That's not only for Cisco, it's true for whichever wireless we need to deploy. We need to have a proper plan in place, but configuration-wise it is straightforward. It is simple.

The shortlist was Aruba and Cisco. The features are more or less the same, but the cost is also important.

Cisco Wireless has been around for quite some time. Cisco is a leader and its Wireless product is very reliable, so investing in it is a safe bet.

I would rate this solution at eight out of 10 because of the availability of support, and its stability.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the 

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.