Cisco Wireless Reviews

The coverage area of Cisco Wireless could improve. Additionally, the reports when a problem arises could be better, such as how it is done in Aruba Wireless solutions. In the Aruba wireless solutions, there are reports that are provided regarding uploads, downloads, and other internet activity that are useful. If this feature was added to Cisco that would be a benefit.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 10 years.

 Cisco Wireless is reliable and stable. 

The coverage of Cisco Wireless could improve.

The technical support from Cisco is very good.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Aruba and Huawei wireless.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless is not complex. However, sometimes when connecting all contact points with the new wireless controller, there is too much configuration.

The price of Cisco Wireless is in the high range compared to other solutions. The solution could be less expensive.

I am satisfied with Cisco Wireless.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Cisco Wireless is easy to use.

Because my wireless controller is not fully compatible with the latest AC and AX compatible devices, we have been experiencing some issues with the wireless controller as technology evolves. We have plans to replace it. Previously it was working fine, but now we have faced several issues.

We will tweak them until we find a good solution. Let's see where this goes in the future.

It should be fully compatible with other devices.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless for ten years.

We have not experienced any issue with the stability of Cisco Wireless.

It is scalable enough. We have a 13-story high-rise building, and I have two wireless controllers to serve the entire structure.

We can easily scale it up. We currently have 50 access points, but I can scale it up to 60 or 70 if necessary.

Cisco Wireless is a scalable product.

This solution is used by 300 people.

We have not contacted technical support.

We plan to deploy Cisco SD-WAN in December.

We use Cisco WLC, and our entire VOQ is Cisco-based.

My core network, distribution network, and access network are all Cisco-based.

The installation was a bit complex.

It took me about a day to finish.

We were able to complete the installation ourselves.

There are no subscription fees.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

We have a variety of segments in retail and hospitality, and each has different requirements. We are using this desk with IC for wireless, and we have high throughput access points depending upon the need and the number of footfalls. So we have designed for high throughput or traffic for video. We have a lot of video sessions — Teams meetings — so it definitely helps.

Cisco Wireless should have a single administration point, so we don't need to log into different controllers. It should be a single pin where we can centrally manage all the controllers in something like Prime. We are using Arista, so I would recommend a service that offers that kind of cloud setup for wireless.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for more than 10 years.

I wouldn't say Cisco Wireless is scalable. I would definitely recommend a more cloud-based setup, like the UCS, which we have for a call manager. It should be on that the lines. So let's compare Cisco Wireless products to other networks that have a cloud-based solution where you can manage thousands of lacks of access points through a single interface. In Cisco Wireless control, we have to log in to each and every appliance, and the clients can support a maximum of 6,000 or 10,000 access points. So it isn't scalable. You have to install a different box. And from an administration point of view, it is a very tedious job to check on each and every control. We have around 30 or 40 controls in our network. 

Cisco technical support is pretty good. It is pretty much the same as other products.

Setting up Cisco Wireless is pretty straightforward. It takes about an hour or two, and we can handle it in-house. To deploy one project, it takes two to three for a single controller.

We have a yearly license.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of 10. I wouldn't recommend Cisco Wireless. I would advise others to look into a cloud-based setup like Arista. Cisco should improve on that part because it is tedious to manage different controllers

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.

We have over 5000 students in grades 1-12 and have on average 200 users on wireless during school hours with no issues.

We have had Cisco 3502, 3602 and 3702 access points, a total of 284 diploids. And for over five years, we've only had two access points that failed.

The configuration is simple. The controllers are reliable, and the support is second to none.  The system works for us.

Price is a concern. Although Cisco has an excellent solution, being competitive in the market is important.

Primary use is for connecting staff and students' laptops, iPads, and Chromebooks.

Most of wireless controllers' features are similar, but what sets WLC, the Cisco wireless controller, apart is that it has an end-to-end solution, meaning that it's running off of Cisco switches, and a Cisco router. So all the platform, from routing to switching, is Cisco. Therefore, having a wireless controller, we can actually manage the quality of service seamlessly.

If we had chosen another product then it may not understand, or we may have to make it jump through hoops, to make it more seamless. Since across the platform, Cisco has an end-to-end solution, that sets it apart from the other vendors.

As far as the technology, pretty much everybody offers almost the same thing. It's just that they name it differently. Other than that they're the same. So the above is the reason we went with the Cisco. 

Also, because I'm Cisco Certified as far routing, switching, etc., I understand their technology. So on top of it, that also helps. I don't have to actually reinvent the wheel to make it work. So it's a  cost savings for the company, because they already hired somebody who understands Cisco products. It's a combination of those things, so we chose the Cisco wireless controller.

This product has a Clean Air Solution, which means it can detect non-WiFi signals. It not only signals but it can also detect that what type of device it is coming from. And if it needs to change the channel in order to avoid that unwanted signal, it can do so and that way the client machine will have better performance.

Also, we have also a test environment. Cisco offers a smaller version, between 25 and 50 access point controllers. It's $2000, very inexpensive. I have it in my test environment so I can do tests before I actually implement in production. That helps.

If needs to provide more visibility. It can detect and do it, but as technicians we don't have a lot of visibility into seeing exactly what's happening. It doesn't give us a lot of log information for us to troubleshoot. They probably have additional software you need to purchase to get that kind of information. But I think not all companies can afford additional software to see those kinds of details. So if the wireless controller already had, built-in, those types of things for the technician or wireless engineer, it would be more attractive for the end-user to use WLC, more than any other product.

It's very, very stable. We have hardly ever had any problems with it as far rebooting itself, or it couldn't handle the load it had, given how we initially we sized it. It hasn't caused any problems.

We've had no issues with scalability. We initially started with two controllers; as far as a failover we used technology called N+1. But N+1 did not suit our environment because we have about 750 access points throughout the campus. E1 access point can only hold 500. If that ever happened, it would mean another 250 would be hanging out there. So we changed that to 1:1. We now have four controllers. Now we're able to handle up to 1,000 access points. So scalability wasn't a problem. And, if we have to have more we could still do it. So scalability is very seamless.

I would give an A+ to tech support. It depends what kind of issue you have, they have different categories. They can remote in to view our screen and see what the problem is and can give us a recommendation and then we change it, if we think it's necessary. If it would be helpful for us then we do it, during off hours.

I have always used Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have used Aruba and other things. As I mentioned earlier, they're very similar as far the access points go. They have a similar technology, Clean Air, etc., they have it. 

The only problem is, as I mentioned, they are not using Aruba switches or routers, etc. So when an issue arises they have to finger-point to a different vendor. So I try to avoid that kind of different vendor finger-pointing. If I can have the same vendor solution and it's stable and works well, why not use them that way. If there's any problem, it is one vendor, there is no finger-pointing.

it's not really complex. If you're familiar with the technology you should be able to follow through with any of the wireless controllers or Cisco's. They're very intuitive. If you know the terminology you just have to follow through.

As far as I know Cisco is very competitive, price-wise.

Talk to your third-party vendor. It all depends on the company size - how many employees, how big the building is. If it's wireless, and you have only 50 employees but you're using a large building floor, in that case you need many access points. But if you have 50 employees using two or three rooms, then you probably don't need it and it's going to be high density, so there is a different design. So you need to talk to a subject matter expert. Talk to them and design accordingly.

When I joined this company they already had a modular for 6509 switches. So from there I migrated to a 5508 Controller. So at the time it was much easier, since the company was already are using a Cisco wireless controller. It would have been much easier for migration to the 5508. 

We did talk to Aruba about their solution and, I think, price-wise it was very similar and that's the reason we stayed with Cisco.

I rate this Cisco solution an eight out of 10. To bring it up to a 10, as I mentioned earlier, you have to get a Cisco Prime in order to view  signal strength and what's going on, which is an additional cost. You have to buy another product to manage WLC, so why not have Cisco Prime built into WLC so there is one product? That way you wouldn't need to have to buy additional software or licenses to manage WLC. It's basically: WLC manages access points, Prime manages WLC. So why not all under one umbrella, that way you don't have to jump through multiple pages to look and troubleshoot. If all is in one place it would be much easier.

If it's the first time you're implementing it, there is a different way of doing it. Now, I think, Cisco offers a different type of a wireless controller. It can be cloud-based, it can be on a switch module, or it can be just an appliance. So it's based on what your environment looks like and what kind of failover you want. Based on your needs, that's how you have to design. 

Also, look into other products and evaluate them yourself. Have a demo on your site for Aruba or Cisco and see, regarding the high density, how many clients are connecting to one access point and where the breakpoint is, those kinds of things. Evaluate yourself and go with whatever makes sense for your company.

We use Cisco Wireless for networking in an education center.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are security and the ability to manage everything easily. Other solutions, such as Aruba are differentiation.

If you use the EAP for wireless security it is good. The only setback is the user has to have their own login, it is easy to do. If you make a user group for many students because they do not know the password. Having everyone use a group user account is not good. It is best for every student to have their own login. The connectivity will be better.

Cisco Wireless does not have a dashboard that would make it easier for people to manage the solution, such as Cisco Meraki where you are able to monitor the network through the dashboard and everything is visible making it easier. There are many things you can do with the dashboards. With Cisco Wireless if you have to manage the switches, backbone, or update the controllers you have to have someone with Cisco certification or know someone who can support you with the management of the solution. I have colleagues that have difficulties when I am away making changes to the Cisco Wireless devices and this is one of the reasons we are switching this solution to Cisco Meraki.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 14 years.

The solution is stable. However, I had some issues last month with older Cisco wireless solutions. The certificates for some access points had expired and did not want to connect to the WLC.
Finally, I found a solution and got them all to work fine.

Why did I say it is stable. Since, we had installed it from 2009 until 2020 we had no major problem.
We started with a single SSID then with 2 SSIDs then we went up to 4 SSIDs. All 3 used authentication with a radius server. The fourth was managed by the WLC as Guest wifi.
This situation had to be foreseen because Cisco had announced on June 30, 2016 the dates of discontinuation and end of life of the range of our access points. The end date of routine failure analysis and new service provision had been declared on December 29, 2017.
It took 4 years later to face this certification problem.
Our network system of Cisco was really user-friendly:
-With printing with google cloud before it is stopped.
Our new MYQ system is too
- With our IP phone system
- With all practices (Windows, Mac, Tablets, phones and chromebooks)
- With our accounting system.
We really say Alhamdoulila.

The solution has good coverage and people can have access quickly.

We have approximately 700 students with Chromebooks connecting to the network.

I have not used technical support but if you want technical support it costs money.

I have used HPE and Apple wireless solutions previously.

The installation of the solution is easy but it might not be for others. I have used the solution for a long time.

Cisco Wireless solutions should have a price reduction for educations centers. Education centers are there to help people grow and there are not large budgets. The solution tends to be expensive and it can cause difficulties when purchasing them here in Africa.

I have evaluated other solutions, like Aruba through my nephew. This is the system he used at university in the US.

I would recommend this solution to anyone, Cisco is the best. We are migrating to Cisco Meraki next week.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless as part of our network infrastructure. 

The wireless use is pure internet that allows access to guests, staff, and end-users. It doesn't require a lot of high-level features on the site.

We use the normal features that Cisco has, such as access controllers, security, and internet access for the users.

I am in the Middle East, in Isreal, and the problem that we have is with the support. It's not like Europe or America, which have better support. In this part of the world, support is the weak side of this solution. It is very difficult to get in touch with Cisco support if we need them.

I would like to have the option for on-premises support, rather than only having remote support available. This the biggest concern that I have because without on-premises support, we have to call another country for the best service.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for two years.

It's a reliable solution.

It's scalable, and as the company grows each year, it requires the network to grow as well.

We have 100 access points and approximately 300 to 400 users in our organization.

There are only one or two companies in Israel that provide Cisco support as a third party. Support is an area that needs to be improved, at least regionally.

The installation was done by the company. It was already complete.

The price for this product is a little bit high, which is why I am not using the most recent version. Rather, I look for products there are mid-ranged, being not too old or too new.

The licensing fee is yearly.

I am currently evaluating other solutions to determine cost versus benefits. We don't need as many high-level features in our situation.

If you have a large company and you have enough money, you should implement Cisco because it's the best solution. However, if you are in the middle to low range then it is better to look for another, more budget-friendly solution. In Isreal, the government has Cisco licenses.

Also, if the service that you are providing is not a high-level service and has normal features to access the internet, I suggest the middle to low range products.

Overall, I am happy with Cisco Wireless and the main concern that I have is with the price.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.