Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

• Certificate based authentication
• ACL for Guest

Right now more than 90% of our employees connect on wireless only. That minimizes a huge CapEx on LAN infrastructure. Users can connect from any of the offices of banglalink. Roaming is the biggest advantage we have got so far. For security purposes, certificate based authentication ensures that only banglalink employees can connect to those SSID.

• Reporting
• Active Passive Failover on Controller

More than four years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Good.

Good.

We previously used an Aruba solution and we switched because Cisco had a flexible deployment model, it is easy to operate, and has a stable OS.

Initial setup was, of course challenging. However, with the vendor, we worked hard on troubleshooting issues. For example, redundancy during controller failover was very challenging as the AP was taking long time to join with controller.

We implemented it in-house.

I think we got our ROI within a year.

We have two controllers in our 55 offices with more than 175 APs. It costs us around 100k. Currently we don't buy any support from OEM or a vendor, and we keep all necessary APs in stock. For the controller it costs us around 3k yearly.

We compared it to Aruba which was our existing solution.

Fantastic product for an indoor wireless solution. Smooth seamless AP handover, excellent Tech support, integration with other peripherals (AD, Cert server, SIEM etc.) and stable hardware. These are the reasons you should choose this product.

The support from Cisco is always excellent. It's often better than other options, including Aruba.

The product has so many features. If there are maybe a hundred features, a typical organization may only need 60 or 65 at maximum. There's a wide variety of options to choose from.  

The stability is great. It's very reliable. 

You can do multiple layers with the new OS that Cisco offers. 

The new OS streamlines the Cisco offering and it's been very good. 

The solution can scale well.

Cisco moved from the 5000 series, which was a different OS, to a newer OS, right. The 9800, for example, practically improved how a wireless switch or wireless controller should work, which was not so good in terms of Cisco in the earlier versions. It's improved a lot, however, if you are using older versions, you are on a different OS, and it's not as good as it is now. 

Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier. 

The interface could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for five years or so. We used it for a while, then left it, then came back to it. 

The stability is very good. I can't find any fault. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is nice. 

We have about 10,000 to 12,000 or so users on the solution right now. 

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage. We are already 100% covered. 

Technical support from Cisco is very good. It's always been much better than its competitors in this regard. We are quite satisfied with how helpful and responsive they continue to be. There is no equivalent on the market. They simply will not let you down.

I currently also use Aruba. I also have worked with Extreme. 

There are very similar devices and have the same features for the most part. Both are stable and excellent in terms of capabilities. Cisco, however, does offer better support.

The initial setup is now pretty straightforward. Cisco came out with a new OS that streamlined everything - including the initial setup. Where Aruba used to be easier (in terms of implementation), Cisco, with its newest updates, has very much improved and they are neck and neck in terms of ease of setup.

I can get a Cisco network up and running n 30 minutes. If someone knows how a Cisco controller works, I am sure, even with the HA, that person can build one full working controller within one hour. For me, in a lab set up with a virtual machine, in a maximum of 30 minutes, I can bring it up and make a small network work. Within one hour I can do that setup.

I can handle the initial setup myself using the GUI for the controller. 

We don't really see Cisco as a solution that provides an ROI. It's more of a required service for us. 

The licensing is usually for an average of three years, depending on what we buy.

There may be some add-ons that could cost a bit more. 

While, typically, Cisco is a little bit more costly, the costs also depend on your relationship with Cisco.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are using versions six and eight, a mix of both.

We tend to use the on-premises deployment model as we are in healthcare and there are restrictions on what we can do with the cloud and what we cannot do with the cloud.

For those considering the solution, I'd advise them to make sure the support is good in their area or for the solution you choose and that there are knowledgeable people around so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed. 

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

I implement this solution in restaurants with an external aerial or near the beach. I also deployed this solution in big warehouses.

Managing a large warehouse requires the use of advanced technology that facilitates work in the warehouse, usually through tablets, laptops, and mobile phones, all of which are connected to the management system via the wireless network. Mobility in a large warehouse requires continuous connection to the computer system.

The CISCO wireless network allows all end units to be managed as a single network with a security code. The transition from one access point to another is done smoothly and according to the intensity of absorption.

The most important thing for me is 0 disconnections while working, and that all access points are in one group and will use one access code. The units are easy to install and set up

Guidelines and recommendations on where and how to install the units for perfect coverage.

Any utility to test the signal strength. Today every time we install equipment, certain times are forced to change its location due to poor reception.

And seamlessly integrate with products from other suppliers. It will also help if they include a device diagnostic feature in the next release.

I have been dealing with Cisco Wireless for three or four years.

I have a problem with the small device. Product from Series 300. Sometimes you have to reset this device. Maybe the buffer is overflowing, But after I reset the devices, it's work okay.

I have used TP-Link Solution but the Devices hung every 1-2 days

The initial setup and deployment for small businesses are very simple. But for the one with the controller, you have to set up a controller which is not a GUI utility. You have to type a lot in the command line. If you have this with GUIs instead, it will be better. The deployment time depends on the size of the customer's project. This product doesn't require maintenance, just updates to the firmware. 

I install this solution for my customers. 

I think it's affordable. Maybe there are little differences, but it's not very expensive. But with all Cisco products, you have to pay more for the power supply. You'll have to pay for the PoE converter.

I would recommend this product to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.

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.

• Scalability
• Enterprise Wireless Mesh
• Number of interfaces
• High Performance Video

In our company we have employees spread across multiple floors which requires more APs than we originally have. This new WLAN Controller accommodates us very well. It also has the great feature of grouping APs to specific VLANs which gives us a lot of flexibility.

Overall i haven't had any major complaints. I have noticed though when grouping interfaces, sometimes if you need to delete a previously created interface group there can be glitches. The GUI can be improved on.

This specific model (Cisco 5508 Wireless Controller ) - 1 year

Cisco WLAN controller in general - over 10 years

No. The setup was pretty simple and straight forward.

None encountered.

None encountered.

They do just fine.

Very good. On the 2 occasions that I had to contact support I got immediate assistance and the reps were very knowledgeable and able to resolve my issues in little to no time.

We have always used Cisco.

The intial setup was very straight forward. Like most of Cisco devices the initial setup asks you some questions and you can select what you want to use as default or change. I did the preliminary setup then everything else from the GUI.

Implementation was done in-house.

The increased productivity and low downtime from the wireless network is worth every cent spent. The different teams can roam the building while staying connected.....100%

The initial set-up cost including the device was approximately $7500. There is no day-to-day cost besides the power it uses since the device just about maintains itself. Unless adding new APs or subnets to the wireless network there is no need to touch the controller really.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.

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.

Right now, this is our primary connection for the network. We have all of our end devices connect to that. All workers connect to wireless, rather than a wired connection, so they all have laptops. 

The most valuable feature for us is management of the systems. We can easily access all features.

Probably more in terms of how much power it's using. Right now it just seems like it doesn't have enough power. Maybe that is all indicated, but says exactly how much power it's using.

When it comes to wireless controllers you have issues where you want to take an access point computer to a wireless controller, you have to configure the iOS for it. That's just cumbersome and it takes time. It just is not as convenient so not having to do that would be nice. I think it's a little more complicated than that to convert the iOS file when you're doing the wireless controller where you're going to have them converted.

The stability of the power was an issue for us recently. The access point seems to have enough power, but it turns out it did not have enough power.

I did not use technical support. After an hour of trouble-shooting, I figured it out on my own.

We have prior experience with Cisco Meraki, which is a powerful solution.

It's fairly straightforward. They are not always wireless, and that can cause some complications. But, otherwise it is not complicated at all.