Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We use the platform to provide seamless wireless connectivity for our company's network. We use it in the oil and gas industry to ensure strong and reliable wireless connections across our locations. The deployment is managed through a wireless controller, and we rely on the solution for both authentication and connectivity.

The most valuable features of this product are its authentication capabilities and the strong signal coverage of the access points. These features ensure reliable and secure wireless connectivity essential for our operations.

The product could be improved by making installing the operating system on access points easier. This process can be cumbersome and could benefit from a more streamlined approach.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for ten years.

The product is stable. I rate the stability a nine. 

Cisco Wireless WAN users from all our offices can connect through the wireless controller, effectively meeting our network demands. 

I rate the scalability an eight. 

While the support services are generally good, the team can take time to get an engineer immediately for critical issues.

Neutral

The initial setup of this solution was easy. It took about one hour to deploy, and there were no significant difficulties.

The implementation was done in-house.

The product is highly-priced. For example, an access point can cost around $1,200, which is quite expensive.

This platform is a good technology with stable performance. However, its high cost is a significant downside. Other solutions like Aruba or Ubiquiti offer similar capabilities at a lower price point.

I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use Cisco Wireless WAN in our academic institution, both on the campus-wide and dormitory networks.

What I like the most about the solution is how widely available it is.

In terms of improvement, there is always something that could be enhanced. For example, we can't change wireless channels in Cisco Meraki due to a recent standard update. We have asked for help, but no solution has been presented to us yet.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for two years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is fairly scalable. There are approximately 44,000 users of Cisco Wireless WAN on the campuses, while in the dormitory areas where Meraki is installed, there are approximately 2,000 users.

Cisco's technical support is very good and they answer quickly. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. It took about two weeks to get it up and running. An engineer and a technician at our company deployed it. We began by planning access point locations over a couple of days. Using ICAO 610 for setup and having access points with serial numbers made the initial setup quick, taking just a few minutes. Then, we spent a few days configuring the network settings.

Our university has experienced a positive return on investment, and I believe Cisco Wireless WAN will continue to benefit us for at least a decade.

It is quite an expensive solution, but I am positive it is the right choice for our institute. We have an EA for Meraki, so we pay for access once a year as part of our licensing arrangement.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to anyone who is considering using it. It is a great solution for campuses and universities. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I'm a solution architect and consultant in my company (a Cisco partner and system integrator) and our standard use case for Cisco Wireless LAN is providing WiFi coverage throughout our client organizations' buildings. These organizations include banks, airports, and universities. We also use other networking products from Cisco, including Cisco Meraki for cloud-based wireless networking in smaller environments.

I have seen that many people are using a lot of the features directly available on the wireless controller. Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network.

The coverage area on some of the low-end access points isn't the best. The high-end ones are fine, but we've had bad experiences on the other ones. Compared to some of the non-Cisco access points we use, the low-end access points from Cisco have shown to give only very minimal coverage.

I am currently wondering how Cisco is going to handle the connections between 5G and the WiFi 6. These new technologies have similar features and I would expect, in the future, that there will be some integration between them.

The stability is fine. Cisco Wireless solutions are generally more stable than others, there is no doubt about that in my mind. Even our customers have experienced the same thing. The only problem is the different models. The range of models of Cisco access points is very limited compared to other vendors. And there are some challenges on the antenna configuration.

It is scalable. Right now, it has only one series of controllers for all the numbers of access points, so in terms of scaling, we can always increase the controllers even if we have thousands of access points.

The tech support for Cisco Wireless is fine. It's not usually myself that deals with them, but rather our technical deployment and support engineers. If they can't resolve any issues on their own, they simply raise a technical ticket with Cisco support.

We are also selling Cisco Meraki products along with the standard Cisco portfolio. I don't have a lot of experience with Meraki, because we mainly recommend those products to small and medium environments, especially if the customer doesn't have a lot of networking staff and they simply want to bring WiFi services up quickly. 

It is easy to set up the access points. Regarding how many people are needed for deployments, it really depends on the size of the project. We will have different scenarios ranging from only 10 to 15 access points, all the way up to 1,000 access points. All of this requires staff to physically mount the access points, and then we'll have the cabling technicians who connect all the cabling.

After that, once they all connect back to the controller, all the integrations will be done on the controller. So the wireless engineer requirement is very minimal compared to how many people are needed for the physical installation. If you've got a two-person team, they should be able to install 10 to 20 access points per day.

If you have a two-person team doing the physical access point installations, they should be able to set up 10 to 20 access points per day. 

For the Cisco Wireless implementation, the most important advice I would like to give is regarding the planning of the access points. The planning is very important because if you do not do proper planning based on the requirements, then the project might well turn out to be a big mess. That's because once you install an access point in one location, it's very hard to move around. Keep this in mind from the beginning. 

I would rate Cisco Wireless LAN an eight out of ten. I won't say it's the best there is, but it is definitely a leading solution.

I've been designing wireless solutions and have been a solutions provider for over 20 years. I spec the solution based on the client's requirements and use whichever vendor device is affordable, and fits the purpose of the company's requirements.

We mainly use the WLC 5000 series. We use other Cisco products, mainly geared to smaller markets. I use Cisco and Dell devices, but mostly Cisco, as in the switching arena. I'm most familiar with cloud management and wireless Cisco solutions such as the WMM. I'm not familiar with the Cisco CSR or Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V. 

In terms of WLAN solutions, it all comes down to the business requirements and commercials. I would tend to use Cisco at the higher end if the commercial can afford it, but it also depends if it's fit for purpose on the NRL hive. I also use Ubiquiti and I've also started to look at Campion as well. But it really depends on the requirements. External, Ubiquiti, internal Cisco, and Aerohive.

The granularity of standardization and technical controls would be the big one in terms of valuable features. You can control everything, every technology within the wireless arena. It contrasts with Meraki which is very much macro-driven so you don't have the visibility of the complete engine. From an engineering and consultant perspective, I want full control. The Cisco WLC solution supplies that in the form they have at the moment, but I know that they changed the UI a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen it but as it exists at the moment I'm on 8.5 or 8.6 of the code up, but they're using the code that they use on the WLCs and not what would be the new version, which I believe is different.

With the WMM there are a few bits and pieces missing that some of the other vendors have. Cisco has a bad habit, although they'd probably see it as a good habit, of not applying extras. I want more managing features. Cisco would love you to go and buy Cisco Prime, which is very expensive, especially if you want to get reports active for the SME market. They generally don't add to existing products and are actually outpricing themselves. Cisco needs to realize that if they want to reach a global market, there are many markets within that. They need a price point that allies a smaller market and sometimes a specific country. I work in Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is very much SMB, and Cisco has priced themselves out of that market. From a management perspective, if I want to get good reports and good troubleshooting capabilities, I have to go and buy an additional product, Prime or another product that they facilitate. Aerohive products and the like have that under the hood and are a cheaper product. Cisco needs to be paralleling what the other vendors' devices are doing and giving what could be other markets the ability to use the product. For now, they've priced themselves out in some locations.

In terms of additional features, they need to look at the market and need to look at whether or not it includes more management features under the hood and more layers to functional troubleshooting which other vendor devices do, that would be a big improvement. But they need to be built into the product that you buy, and you shouldn't have to go and pay thousands of pounds for an additional management platform. There should be a level of management solution purchased through the standard WLAN, Cisco's WLAN solution. There isn't enough.

I would want people to be aware that Cisco Wireless WAN is a top-end product and solution. Their portfolio is superb. They have major experience and maturity and are very much in tune with their field. I work in warehousing facilities. Like most things, though, there are pros and cons. Cisco is the top end, commercially. It's going to be double the price, and I mean double the price, of everything else. Other products that I use, and I have cross-referenced the price point with many solutions for the requirements of our enterprise customers, are half the price.

They are a good product. Do they warrant the extra expense? I would have to say no, but they do have great maturity and their product portfolio is not just the access points but their other add-ons; their antennas, maturity and the information out there, which is invaluable. You pay for these from an engineering and consultative perspective. I need to research issues and other people's experiences. Cisco obviously has the world's best engineers, consultants who have that and very nicely post their experiences. That is invaluable. But unfortunately some markets, again I'm talking about Ireland here, sometimes can't afford that. And there are other products that can do the job just as well.

Commercially they are quite flawed but in terms of technology, you can't really beat Cisco, to be honest. Commercially I would rate them as a 2 but technically they would be an 8 or 9 out of ten. I'm not a fan of the Meraki product so I'm taking it out of the equation. I'm talking about Cisco WLCs, and what would be the solution. Technically it's an excellent product.

Unfortunately, their validity into other commercial markets is flawed. Majorly flawed. And they have too much competition, and Cisco being Cisco will just go "Well, that's fine, we didn't want to do that."  Then we would not use their products. So that's unfortunate. Maybe that's just a bit of pretension on their part.

Our primary use case for Cisco Wireless WAN is corporate guest access. We are a hospital, so it is essential for clinical users.

The solution is reliable. It is important that the infrastructure is reliable and does not encounter frequent issues.

The price point is contentious as the licensing model seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately six years.

The infrastructure does not encounter frequent issues, making it stable.

I rated the scalability a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very scalable.

We require support, indicating that customer service is necessary.

Positive

The installation process was straightforward. We had help during the installation.

We had professional help during the installation process.

The price point is the main challenge as it seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.

My overall rating for the solution is eight points out of ten. 

We have it on campus. When the users try to connect to the WAN, we have to use that for this objective, or we have to make a wireless independent Wi-Fi using Cisco Umbrella for Meraki. Those are the two cases we use.

It's practical because, for example, in remote locations, we use a captive portal. We try to allow users to use authentication through a username of this company. Another thing is the firewall. In the console, we have to restrict or block traffic using the portal. It's a very useful feature. 

Another important thing is Cisco Umbrella for Meraki, that integration. But it's not too customizable. We have only three levels: default, basic, or moderate, but we want it to be possible to configure it more granularly. Users have different requirements, so we can't satisfy them because we only have three levels of restriction in trying to browse the Internet.

It's easy to deploy because using Cisco Meraki cloud makes it easier to deploy access points quickly. In one instance,  a department asked for a Wi-Fi connection, and we were able to deploy this quickly.

Recently, we integrated Cisco Meraki with Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella. But, for example, with the integration, we don't have traffic statistics. I don't know if the provider or the partner made a mistake, but we lost the traffic statistics. 

The observability of the traffic for one client was wonderful before. But after when we implemented Cisco Umbrella in all branches, Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella, the integration was not good because we lost the observability of the traffic. Because I think that Umbrella encrypted the traffic before ingressing it to Cisco Meraki. I think that's the reason we lost the observability.

Other things that we explained, for example, is the WAN asset to rate. For example, we can help a user that tells us that the Wi-Fi or the network was intermittent. So when we have to troubleshoot this issue, we can't see anything. So all is okay. However, the experience of the user was bad. We tried to use the dashboard, but the information wasn't useful. We worked to change the model of Cisco Meraki to try to help. And that solution worked. But the information in Cisco Meraki portal was not good, and it was sad.

I have been using it for three years. 

I don't know if it's the model of the Cisco Meraki product because we have a high density of users. Right now, I don't know if the model of the system supports a lot of users or concurrent users. So, we opted to install more access points. I think that we need more information or more help from partners to assess what model is correct for this environment.

It's very easy to scale because we can deploy other access points. I think that it's easy because the configuration, we only need the IP address. It's very easy to deploy the configuration of access points because we have to assign a profile configuration. So it's very easy.

The partner provides the support. We only call the partner to solve the issues. I think that the partner uses Cisco if the problem is severe. So, with Cisco, we don't have contacts because the partner contacts them if they need help.

For example, the panel, when we have these problems with Wi-Fi, we ask them. So, we use the site survey, the conclusion, or the accommodation. So, in this site survey, we got the majority of the average number of issues that we have. We overcome that issue. 

But, after that site survey, using the current tools in Cisco Meraki, we could not solve those issues. We need a site survey to resolve everything.

The partner mostly suggests a site survey.  

Neutral

I also have experience with Cisco Wireless, but based on Catalyst. And right now, we have Cisco Meraki, we are going to upgrade to Cisco Catalyst.

It is pretty fast and easy to deploy. In one hour, we are able to deploy. Right now, we have branches. We have a campus or headquarters. 

On each floor, we have a different VLAN. The Wi-Fi is on a different VLAN as well on all floors. So that VLAN passes through the SD-WAN. We use independent VRFs. So that VLAN only passes, they use the SD-WAN channel. However, we have problems with that implementation, for example. Right now, we have a problem because the smartphones can't connect to the Wi-Fi consistently. I don't know, but before, we didn't have that issue. 

The smartphones cannot connect to the VLAN configuration that we have. But now, they can connect. So, we are trying to solve this issue right now.

The integration was hard when deploying Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco ISE. In that case, it was hard. But we tried to find alternatives to satisfy the security requirements.

There is a return on investment with the right configurations. 

Cisco Meraki is cheap. Cisco Catalyst is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for the network in our office. The solution is deployed on-premises.

There are currently 20 people who use this solution in my organization. They're technical staff and salespeople. 

I use Cisco because of its reliability.

The price could be improved. It can be complicated to configure the solution.

In the next release, it could be more user-friendly.

I have used this solution for 10 years.

It's very stable. I would rate the stability as nine out of ten.

It's scalable. I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

We previously used Linksys. We switched to Cisco because of its sustainability and expandability.

Normal installation isn't complex. Installation takes a couple of hours.

One person is needed for maintenance.

Implementation was done in-house.

The total cost of the solution was about $6,000.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I wouldn't give it 10 out of 10 because the price is high and the solution can be complicated.

I would recommend it to those who are interested in using it. 

There's a lot of advice and information on the internet. Some of it may be incorrect, so you just have to try it and see.

We primarily use the solution for WiFi and for switching switches. It offers a wireless controller device and access points and switches.

It’s stable.

All the hardware, the signal, the communication between access points or switches, et cetera, is good. The devices are all of good quality.

The switches, in particular, are great. I don't remember the model, however, there is a line of Catalyst switches from Cisco - the industrial switches with 24 ports or 48 ports and a POA feature with a fiber optic port - that are great.

The quality of service is excellent.

The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost. It’s more expensive than other brands, like, for example, HP. You do have to pay for licensing yearly, which is not the case with some others. We’d like to just have a one-time payment option.

The interface could be better. When I connect to the wireless controller, the graphic or the user interface is complicated. It’s hard to understand all the models of the interface. They should work to make it easier.

I’ve used the solution for two months in this current company. I’ve used it for four or five years.

It's very stable. The resolution is very stable. Cisco is working well. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It’s a scalable product.

In the future, the goal is to migrate to a new Cisco access point version. We are working on this. We have the requirement for a wireless controller, maybe, and an update only on the firmware version.

Maybe 400 people use the solution.

I work in the other companies with Cisco and other brands as well as Aruba and HP.

It’s an easy product to set up. It's not difficult at all. 

You do need to pay for licensing on a yearly basis. It’s a bit expensive. However, I don’t know the exact costs.

I’m a customer.

We use the latest version of the solution.

The solution is a market leader. It works great.

I’d rate it nine out of ten.