Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We are satisfied with the product.

The access points and controllers are good and do not give us any issues. In addition, the individual access points are good.

They recently launched the virtual wireless controller and a new CTI. Unfortunately, it is not scalable, and the performance is not good. Sometimes it hangs, and it has a slow response. We don't have a good experience and are uncomfortable with these elements.

The network management system is not great. It is incapable of handling a large number of access points. They are working on it but have not been able to fix it yet.

We have been using this solution for about six years. We are using different models like the Wi-fi 5 model.

The technical support is good because we have a contract with them. They respond whenever we have an issue.

The pricing is okay compared to other products like Aruba and Huawei. However, to be more competitive, Cisco could lower its price.

We have a big infrastructure of about 15,000 to 20,000. So if it works fine for us, it will suit small companies with small networks. We use the controller, and it is fine. I rate this solution a five out of ten, mainly because of the network issues.

We have around nearly 150 access points. We use Cisco access points for our business core systems for the employees. All the users connect through this wirelessly.

Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable. The signal strength is also very strong.

The connectivity is reliable, and it doesn't have many issues.

The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate. Even some integrations can be challenging. But we can manage eventually.

Therefore, for me, some areas of improvement include integration, pricing, and console. 

Scalability is easy, it is stable, and configuring certain things like Mac filtering is also simple. However, I feel the need to enhance the security aspect, especially for guest connectivity.

I've been using it for around five years.

Stability is really good in Cisco Wireless WAN. I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

There are no restrictions on scalability. It is a scalable product. We have 150 access points, and there are 350 employees.

The support is good. They have a vendor here currently, and their support is good.

Neutral

The initial setup is not difficult. It's easy because we have been using Cisco for a long time.

Moreover, very little maintenance is required. We just perform some checks and minor tasks. There isn't much maintenance required.

It is a bit expensive compared to others. So it's a little costly.

For us, this is an all-in-one product. It doesn't have separate licenses. When purchased, the product comes with a license. It's a one-time purchase.

We were migrating from the on-prem to the cloud version. We made a comparison analysis b/w different technologies.

Cisco wireless on-prem has moved to Cisco Meraki Access, and Cisco Meraki is the better. We can use the cloud solution. The only thing is the price is a little high. Other than that, all the features and security aspects are really good with Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The overall rating is seven due to the higher price and the need for enhancements in the console and security features. The guest Wi-Fi and non-console options are lacking in the older version, although I believe the new version might address that.

Cisco Wireless WAN is mainly used in campus networks, hotels, and other enterprise customers to provide wireless internet connectivity.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability.

Cisco Wireless WAN could be improved by introducing a low-power wireless access point that could be installed in an outside environment. I would also like them to add an option without any licensing controller so that the customer could just purchase access points, then plug and play. In the future, Cisco Wireless WAN should include cloud control, centralized management, and branch connectivity.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for around ten years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is perfectly stable. Some of our customers have been using it for eight to ten years without having to change the hardware as it continues to work perfectly.

There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost.

Cisco's technical support is very responsive, fast, and knowledgeable, with experienced and knowledgeable engineers.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy because so many engineers know the product, and Cisco makes a lot of technical documentation available via its online portal. I would rate the setup process as five out of five.

Cisco's licensing model includes some mandatory licenses, making it more expensive than other vendors like HP, Aruba, and Ruckus.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN ten out of ten.

Most of my customers are demanding a wireless connectivity that seamless and  great mobility for their users. Because modern workplace now requires great collaboration and great collaboration comes from great mobility.

Cisco Wireless LAN has improved a lot of my customers organization. The best part of using wireless solution is the mobility, where my customers can work together like anywhere and anytime. They way they are working also changing after using wireless solution.

Cisco Wireless Solution comes with WiFi 6 capability that provide higher bandwidth and less usage of battery for endpoint. The visibility on the solution also comes in place when it is integrated with Cisco DNA Center. Day 2 operation is much easier because the solution provide wider visibility and analytics.

Apart from the features and benefits that Cisco Wireless LAN Solution has been given, some areas are still need to be improved. For example on part of onboarding the AP. For customer who has old version WLC (AireOS version) and want to migrate their AP to new WLC (IOS XE version) sometime requires extra effort because of DTLS certificate issue or no valid ap manager. 

Working on Cisco Gold Partner as Systems Engineer give me more than 6 years already in delivering Cisco Wireless LAN Solution. From the era of Aironet untill now becoming era of Catalyst Wireless.

Cisco Wireless LAN Solution is stable if you choose the recommended version of firmware.

Cisco Wireless LAN scalability is good. The smallest of WLC can handle up to 250 APs and the highest WLC can handle up to 6000 APs.

Cisco TAC is helpful when assisting us during troubleshooting the issue, one thing that can be improved also from Cisco Wireless Solution is to auto capture the logs and everything that need to be analyzed during troubleshooting for particular user since troubleshooting wireless need to analyze on live session.

Positive

The initial setup is less complex than it used to be and has definitely improved. There's still a way to go. Depending on the customer, deployment can take from two weeks to three months.

We implement the solutions with our implementation team.

Licensing on Cisco Wireless Solution comes in 3 types of subscriptions, DNA Essential, DNA Advantage and DNA Premier. Those 3 types licensing actually has a component which perpetual based. But at first time of buying the solution, Cisco enforced the customers to buy initial license that come with minimum of 3 years subscriptions. After 3 years passed, customer can still use the network even the license is not being renewed because there is a part on the license that perpetual. Digging deeper on to the part of subscriptions license, actually most of the features are can only use if the customer has DNA Center. So if the customer doesn't have DNA Center then mostly those features is unable to use.

Cisco Wireless LAN solutions is good enough to deliver the wireless experience for my customers, but sometimes we need to adjust or tune the configuration before get the best experience. Since Cisco is already has AI capability, I hope that in the future, the configuration will be adjusted with the baseline of customer environment. Suppose that there is learning curve process for 1 week, after that the solution will provide a report that configuration need to be fixed according to the customer environment and according to Cisco Best Practice. This report need to be evaluated by IT Admin and if it is approved, then schedule a downtime in the out of office hour for implementing the configuration.

We primarily use the solution for wireless access. It allows, for example, mobile users, to connect.

The solution has been very stable so far and the performance overall is quite good.

We have found that the product scales well.

The solution is easy to implement.

The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable. Cisco is expensive in general.

We've been using the solution for three years at this point. We've used the product for a while. 

The solution is stable. It offers very good performance. The reliability is excellent in that it doesn't crash or freeze and there are no bugs or glitches to deal with. 

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have around 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We've never had the need to contact technical support from Cisco. It's been issue-free. therefore, I can't speak to helpful or responsive they would be.

I did not switch from a different solution. We've always used Cisco.

We had no issues setting up the solution. the implementation is easy and pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex or difficult. Configuring and installation were issue-free. It doesn't take too much time.

You only need two technical people to set up and manage the product. It's not maintenance-intensive. 

The installation was pretty fast. We didn't need any help from integrators or consultants.

This is a rather expensive product.

We pay a yearly fee for the license and support services. 

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is supplying Wi-Fi to public users.

We have been using this solution for 3D uploading and providing resources for users. Our goal is to offload traffic from mobile devices while people are at work.

We have been installing this solution in malls, the university, and other buildings. We have deployed this solution across the whole country.

This is the most stable product in the market.

The documentation is very good and it's available everywhere. If you use Google to search then you will get it all.

The integration is easy.

The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime. Currently, we have to calculate this on our own by using a performance tool and then customize the reports to display it. This information is a major concern for us because we need to know how much uptime is available to our customers.

This is a stable solution and we have not had any problems. We have not found any bugs.

The only problem that we have had is related to power failures, which has nothing to do with the product.

We have deployed this solution across the country, and anyone who is in the kingdom can use Wi-Fi for free for two hours. We have thousands of users.

We will be deploying more Cisco products because the integration is easy, and our core is already made up of Cisco.

We are satisfied with the technical support from Cisco.

They are not only taking care of the Wi-Fi. Cisco has also deployed the IP MPLS network.

Whenever we have a problem and we explain it to them, they try their best to solve it.

Previously, we were using the Cisco 5500 series and the 8500 series.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex because there is lots of documentation available and it is very good. Instead of being complex, it becomes easy for you.

We are also using a solution by Aruba. Some of the features are better with Cisco, whereas different features are better in Aruba.

We also evaluated Nokia and we found it more difficult to integrate.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am a solutions architect primarily dealing with networking and security matters. I recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to customers, particularly larger businesses.

Wireless assurance has significantly improved network reliability. Additionally, certificate-based authentication has been critical for my customers' operations.

There needs to be an adjustment in subscription licenses and their pricing. Buying the hardware and then managing Cisco renewals incurs a CapEx and also a yearly OpEx expense, which causes a struggle.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for a long time, approximately ten years.

I'd rate the product nine out of ten for stability.

The solution is scalable and adapts well to scaling needs as businesses grow.

The technical support by Cisco is very good. We have no issues with it.

Positive

Cisco Wireless WAN can be competitive in terms of pricing but may also be a bit pricey at times. The main issue is the license renewals and subscriptions, which can be expensive.

There are many competitors like HP with Aruba and Juniper. Huawei or other Chinese companies provide options, and Fortinet also has access points.

I generally recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to other businesses except for small business owners due to the cost factor. They could consider other cost-effective products. It would be beneficial to see more AI integration in troubleshooting and network visibility.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN 9115s and 9130s. Two are controllers, and the rest, subordinates.

Cisco wireless is stable, easy to use, and simple to configure. They have an outstanding GUI.

You cannot go to different versions or different access points. 9115s cannot interact with 9120s, and 9130s can interact with 9115s. You can add or remove as many subordinates as you want. It's not an issue. It's completely logical.

Cisco support is fantastic. They're knowledgeable and responsive.

Setting up Cisco Wireless is extremely easy. I'm doing one right now, and it usually takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. You need to read the documentation carefully when implementing it because you have to go through a step-by-step configuration. Upgrading can be done in two ways: HTTP from the desktop or TFTP. HTTP is extremely easy. You connect with a console cable and do it.