Cisco Wireless Reviews

We use the solution for a corporate Wi-Fi network and we have another network for authentication for corporate devices, such as scales or hand scanners. These devices must have access to some internal resources and do not need accessing to the internet.

We have hardware controllers on our sites and a number of access points all over. The number is up to 25 currently.

We are using Cisco access point 2802, and they are very reliable. We have a number of those access points all over our network, approximately 550. I have been working with this company for about a year and the project was deployed a year before. The access points have been working now for two years without one failure.

In general, the solution completely meets our needs. However, the wireless controllers themselves could be more reliable. When they work in high availability mode, we have had some issues with them. Sometimes the cluster dissipates, the primary controller fails and the secondary does not completely switch on reducing functionality.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The stability could improve, there are some issues. We were told the version of the software we are using on all of the controllers is best for Cisco IOS, but we might need to update our software. Doing so might fix the stability issues we are experiencing.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 3,000 users using the solution simultaneously in the supermarket network and it can scale upwards to 100,000.

We have a partner that helps us with the solution's deployment and maintenance. In general,  we have three technicians that help with the solution but if we run into more complex situations we contact Oracle.

We are using the Wireless Controller 3504 on Wi-Fi 5.

If they work on fixing the reliability of the solution we will be fine using the product in the future.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

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. 

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.

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 have two main objectives. One is to provide a secure access network, that's secure wireless access across the network to our customers. The other is to provide access to our guests. Now, with the new centrally managed solution, we are able to leverage the interaction with the product and the different security solutions in the market. 

The tool has greatly improved the system interaction between employees. What I mean by that is with this wireless connectivity between networks, we have the ability to use mobile communication in remote and rural areas. Now we can leverage wireless work phones. This increased mobility has helped our organization. We can talk to one another from different locations and stay in constant contact with employees across the enterprise. Everyone has access to up-to-the-minute communications and all documents and applications on our network.

We can work together more effectively. Our customers who use the wireless LAN can roam around their office or to different floors without losing their connection. Similarly, using Voice over Wireless LAN technology, they can have roaming capabilities in their voice communications.

The most valuable features are the new centrally managed solution. The interaction of the product with the different security solutions in the market. 

Improvements can be made in the wireless connectivity. Particularly, the wireless, rods and, microchips and other access point components. I think that Cisco can improve its product line. 

Additionally, improvements can be made to the telemetry. The licensing gets in the way here. It makes it impossible to record the different flows across the wireless network. 

It's a stable product.

The solution is scalable. The scalability is interdependent and associated directly with our client's needs, budgeting constraints, and reach.

The initial configuration and setup were very simple. On average it takes half an hour to build access points and deploy. After that, all that is left to do is register the access points.

For the Green Sheet Project Updates, we use the documentation to do the initial configuration of the access points and then deploy them as we need them. As for the physical controllers, this allows us to do things the way we like. 

Our clients could have five to ten engineers working, but they could all be working with different solutions, they're not dedicated to the wireless box.

We are the wireless solution integrator, so we deploy the projects. We undertake the integration as well as convert the existing access points to conserve energy.

As far as pricing and licensing go it really depends. I think that it would be better to have more flexible licensing mostly for our clients because then we could commercialize those solutions and position them for a more broader market segment. The pricing depends on the size of the project and the support from the client side.

We evaluated other options for our client's needs. We evaluated solutions based on the client's budget and system requirements. In Nigeria, we need to take weather conditions into account. Our solution has to be temperature resistant. Cisco offers stable, portable, aerobics products.

I would advise someone considering this solution to be prepared. Understand your needs. Undertake a very clear site survey to be in a position to present the best-adjusted solution. If you don't do your due diligence you can buy a very good product response, but it won't resolve the wireless coverage problem; the key is to deploy a strategic wireless solution and adjust the parameters as needed. As well as being able to scope access points.

I rate this solution an 8 out of 10. I give it an 8 because it's a general rating of the overall product. Cisco is a network and security technology provider. Their strength lies in the network and security solution. The wireless solution can be built better.

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. 

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.

We've got a very large install base with Cisco Wireless. We use it for a number of situations.
We use it in warehouses, retail branches, and offices.

It is a reliable and robust solution. Access and Mobility Groups are useful. We don't use anything very fancy.

Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba.

The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing.

They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better.

I have been using this solution for maybe 15 years.

It is stable and reliable.

It is scalable. There are no issues with scalability. We have approximately 5,000 users.

They are very good. I am satisfied with their technical support.

Over the last 15 years, we've done so many installations, and we've had them refreshed many times. We've also done installations in the last six months. It is in the middle in terms of complexity. It is neither straightforward nor too complex.

Its licensing is not simple. There are additional license costs for features, which is frustrating for us. There are some features that are included for free in the base Aruba product, but they are available at additional costs in this solution.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a six out of ten.