The ability to do mesh and bridge is the solution's most valuable aspect.
The multiple VLANs and their wireless LANs are great.
The solution offers very good stability.
The ability to do mesh and bridge is the solution's most valuable aspect.
The multiple VLANs and their wireless LANs are great.
The solution offers very good stability.
The new GUI interface and the newer version OS are a little bit more complex than the older version, however, it just might take some getting used to.
There's room for improvement when it comes to setting up 802.1 authentications, their user authentication with the AAA. It's too difficult and not intuitive.
The solution is extremely expensive.
We've been using Cisco for a number of years. It's likely been seven or eight years since we started using it. It's been quite a while.
We don't have issues with stability. It's been quite reliable for us. We don't have issues with bugs or glitches and it doesn't seem to crash or freeze. We've had a good experience with it overall.
The solution is scalable, however, it becomes expensive. Organizations should keep that in mind if they are searching for a solution that can expand in the future.
The solution's online documentation is very good. There are always answers somewhere in the forums as well, so you can go there in order to find the answers to the questions you might have on how to troubleshoot or use the product.
We're actually doing a test with Aruba Wireless right now. We want to use both. THe POC has been going on for one month.
Cisco has changed their licensing mode and they've become very expensive.
We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.
As a product itself, I would rate it around an eight or nine out of ten, however, due to the fact that it's so expensive, I'd knock off a few points. Therefore, on a scale from one to ten with all things considered, I'd rate it at a six. If money were not an object, I would highly recommend the solution.
We use the solution to broadcast SSIDs. We have around 40 SSIDs with 150 access points across our organization.
The product is easy to manage. It is easy to create SSIDs and add access points to wireless controllers.
Sometimes our customers do not get proper IP addresses from the DHCP pool.
Clients should see our organization’s pop-up page when they connect to our SSID.
I have been using the solution for two years.
The product has been stable for the last two years.
Two people in my organization use the product.
The initial setup is quite easy for me because I have experience using the solution.
The solution is a little expensive compared to other brands.
Cisco is one of the main products in our region. People who want a solution with flexibility and security should choose Cisco. Overall, I rate the product an eight and a half out of ten.
I use Cisco Wireless for education as I am managing a school. We use it for connectivity for students and teachers. It is an international private school. This is why we have to get high speed connectivity.
I have not used the solution for enough time to give a full evaluation but I will tell you the estimate - I estimate that it will reduce the time for a student to do their work and reduce the time for copying and transferring data through the local network. That's the reason that what we needed to get this hardware.
The features that I have found most valuable with Cisco Wireless is that the average connectivity for this WIFI access point is 2.5 gigabytes. That's the highest technology and highest connectivity. They started using the new technology and WIFI to get you a faster connectivity. All companies jumped from Wave 2 to WIFI 6 for the high speed.
I selected Cisco Wireless because I found they improved everything, but there is still a gap in Cisco reporting. It did not invest more into giving accurate reports. That's the missing thing in the solution.
In the next release, they should add a better reporting feature. The reporting will tell you if you have a problem. That will make the diagnostics easier. Although, we have not had problems that required a lot of diagnostics.
I just implemented the Cisco Wireless WiFi 6 last weekend.
I would be liar if I answered if it is stable because it has only been up for two days.
But the Cisco solution overall, and Cisco Wireless generally, are 100% stable.
It is scalable. We have around 2000 students and teachers using it because we are an educational institution.
I'm the IT manager. My role as IT manager is managing the whole technology results.
We require three staff people for deployment and maintenance of Cisco Wireless - a network administrator and two IT specialists.
They are good.
I have been using the Cisco solution since 2011.
The initial setup right now of the access points to the WIFI, and to the switches are managed by FortiGate firewall and the wireless controller. So the routing is through the FortiGate firewall and the activity is through the Cisco switches managed through the wireless controller.
The plan was to upgrade the firewall and remove the old non-supported access point from the system because I used hybrid between these two and WIFI 6. Because this hardware is very expensive to get all at one time, we have a plan to replace all access points for these.
The development takes three days. But the delivery takes a long time. They take a lot of time to deliver hardware.
We implemented with a Cisco partner. They were experts. They did all they were supposed to do and it was active within the time as planned.
Two days is not enough to see ROI.
But for the previous experience, yes, I can see ROI. The old access points stayed with us since 2015. I have some working since 2017. I removed some from the system, so I have all 2017 access points still working. That is quite a reliable system.
Any people who are looking to get a stable solution with and long life and long time connectivity should go with Cisco.
The big lesson is that when you invest in expensive hardware, you have to understand that it should be a trusted hardware to give you stability and to make sure that your investment will be returned soon. The cost of implementation and downtime with Cisco are less than with other solutions.
On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.
We're using Cisco Wireless for patient tracking or infant abduction and security — for securing the floor and our infant patients. Cisco is also used for device management, such as IV pumps and other small but significant pieces of equipment that we need to track. We're also using it for temperature monitoring in the refrigerators for drugs and things that must be kept at a specific temperature. We use Cisco Wireless for patients' access and any wireless cart, whether it's a PC or an EKG machine. And we have different channels for stuff in the health network and the staff network versus what is publicly open for the patients and family.
For me, the most valuable thing about Cisco Wireless is its ease of use and stability.
The biggest pain point has been keeping our people and the vendor up to speed on the technology. It's getting our staff to understand that opening up a laptop and connecting to the WLAN is not the same as triangulating and trying to figure out where an IV pump is. So when you're trying to use the real-time location services, I think it's that shift from your density and your overlap. For example, you used to be able to stick an access point up if something was a little weak in an area. Now, if you stick that access point up, you might have too much coverage in that area, which is as bad as too little coverage. I think it's hard for everybody to get their heads around that. It's not just the vendor—it's also the customers. And how do we continue to partner and ensure that we're all going together as the technology changes.
I've been dealing with Cisco for 15 years or thereabouts.
Stability's good. I'm not saying we don't end up with something flakey every once in a while, but it's not often at all.
Cisco Wireless seems to be pretty scalable. But, again, they do an excellent job of saying exactly what the coverage will be. And so we have to make sure that when someone wants to add things they understand what it means. Do I have to resurvey that whole area? Because they'll say, it was just wired for wireless access, not location tracking. So now I've got to go in and check my density and things like that. It's very scalable, but when you shift gears sometimes, you have to do more work than people anticipate.
Cisco support is good, but I think it could be better. Their collaboration with their partners is probably the biggest challenge I've had. If I have an issue with an application that runs off the Cisco network and Cisco has to work with their partner to resolve it, that gets a little hanky sometimes.
We've been using the initial one, but we've swapped it out since then, and it's been relatively painless. And when we've expanded, the new buildings get new wireless. And when we've bought new hospitals, they get new wireless. So you've got the stuff that's been in there for a long time, and you've got the stuff that hasn't been there for long at all. So we have a routine for what to do when we've got a new building.
I don't know the details about the pricing. Typically it just gets lumped into my project. So I'm not sure what we're paying in licensing fees.
I'd give Cisco Wireless an eight out of 10. I don't know what to compare it to, but I'm hesitant to give anybody a 10. I'd give them an eight. If you are considering Cisco Wireless, I suggest looking at the total cost of ownership. This stuff doesn't last forever. So when you put it in the ceiling, when will you need to replace it? It's not a one-time investment. And then what is it going to take to get it there? Because sometimes you may end up with the impact you have every time. Hospitals are constantly renovating. Depending on what you need wireless for, you may have to spend tens of thousands re-surveying and repositioning your access points to optimize if you remodel an area. You may have thought, "Oh, I already have wireless in there. Just because I'm moving these three or four walls doesn't mean..." Well, it does mean something. The total cost of ownership matters. Make sure remediations are built into your capital budget if you're doing construction.
We are customers of Cisco and I'm an enterprise architect.
I like the connectivity of this solution. We have a pretty good team working on the product. They are quick and the solution is fairly easy to configure. Customization is not a problem because all products can be customized or cross-customized.
I would like to see an improvement in the controllers of the solution. I would ideally like to have software defined WiFi as an additional feature, everything connected with LVMs, so basically to define networking; ADPs which would define the perimeter and a combination of PSDN and WAN, etc. I would also like to see the use of the PE market and functions. Authentication and authorization processes for guest users would also be a good additional feature.
I've been working with Cisco for over five years.
This solution is extremely scalable. If we're talking about any solution that has a cloud-based infrastructure, I assume it's scalable and as a network architect I don't need to worry. If the solution is on-prem, like we have now, I have to worry about a potentially slow infrastructure, network, interfaces, capacity. On cloud, the only concern is internet connectivity. We have over 30,000 employees and they are all end users.
We use a third-party company that we cooperate with for our technical support, WiFi and for our network.
In general, the setup is quite straightforward although with our factory site configuration, it was more complex. The setup took some time as we're a website company so everything here takes time! It's not a one day implementation, probably closer to a week for the end-to-end installation.
I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.
The main disadvantage of Cisco Wireless is its cost - it's expensive. Its interface is not easy. However, I like it since I am an engineer.
I have been using the product for ten years.
I find the tool to be 99 percent stable.
Meraki is more scalable than Cisco Wireless.
For Cisco Wireless installation, we usually need two people. The whole deployment takes about one day. Maintenance is good for engineers, but I'm unsure about regular users. It's easy, but we need about four people to maintain the product.
I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten.
I prefer Aruba over Cisco Wireless. It is cheaper and easier to deploy, and the Aruba system is easier to install than Cisco solutions. I rate it an eight out of ten.
My organization uses the solution for our hospitality industry customers.
The product enables mobility and centralized control. Embedded Wireless Controller and Software-Defined Networking are the best features of the product. The product has less maintenance cost.
The solution doesn't have much coverage area. The product should improve the licensing structure.
The solution should allow administrators to view and provide more access points to users through the mobile application.
I have been using the solution for seven to ten years.
The solution is scalable.
We always contact the support team. The team provides outstanding support.
The initial setup is an easy process for a trained engineer.
The deployment process depends on the use case. To deploy the product, we can configure the physical wireless controller and add all APs one by one. The deployment is time-consuming. We have certified engineers to deploy the product. Two to five engineers are needed to deploy the solution. We do not face any issues in maintaining the product.
The license structure is confusing.
I am using the latest version of the product. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.
I use Cisco Wireless Wireless across my buildings for education. I have students that use Chromebooks and staff that teach using the tool.
Cisco Wireless provides network access for students. The benefits of using Cisco Wireless are we have enhanced education, and help kids learn and research. Additionally, it helps the staff teach.
The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are the level of control and management. I am happy with it.
The reporting tool in Cisco Wireless could improve. If I am trying to receive information about a client or user, it's cumbersome to retrieve the information on the controller system. If I'm trying to find out where a client's been, it's cumbersome. You need another tool for Historical logs, but it should be all in one.
I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 10 years.
Cisco Wireless is stable.
I can add more access points if needed, Cisco Wireless is a scalable solution.
We have approximately 3,000 users using this solution. We are using the solution extensively.
My experience with Cisco support has been excellent.
The setup of Cisco Wireless is straightforward and it took a couple of days to complete.
I outsource some of the implementations and the planning stage can be the largest issue.
I do most of the maintenance of the solution, such as patching.
I would recommend a third-party integrator if they need help implementing the Cisco Wireless, they can help out a lot.
I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.
Overall Cisco Wireless meets my needs, it has been in place for a while, and I am happy with the solution.