Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We use Cisco Wireless WAN to provide wireless WAN for our company.

I like that it's a very stable solution.

The price could be better.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than four years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is very stable.

I think we used the smallest controller hardware solution, which was more than enough for us. But it's not scalable. It's okay because we don't have more access points.

The initial setup is straightforward. The initial deployment takes me about a day. We have to first set up the controller because it's a controller-based solution and then add access points from them. This will be determined automatically. The configuration is based on the controller and will be pushed to the access points automatically after they have been recognized.

I implemented this solution. 

The price could be better, but it's been okay. You must pay license fees for each access point connected to the controller.

I prefer the solution offered by Fortinet better.

I would tell potential users that it's a good solution if they plan to use more Cisco products. This is because it can be integrated into the entire network design.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless WAN an eight.

I primarily use Cisco Wireless WAN for meetings and to let mobile devices connect to WiFi.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products.

Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic.

I've been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for roughly two years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

Cisco Wireless WAN is fairly expensive.

I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of six out of ten.

The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system.

The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for three years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is quite stable.

This solution is scalable, but it's expensive to add licenses.

I'm satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The ease of the setup depends on the size and design of the network. If a lot of connection points are required, then the wider controller will be needed, and branches will be connected with VPN, which makes it more complicated. 

Cisco's pricing is quite costly and should be cheaper for both licensing and hardware. A license for one access point costs around $500 for three years. There are also separate charges for smart networking and support.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN as nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for normal campus access, for voice roaming, regular setup, some employee networks, network using portals, and simple registrations.

We acquired the Cisco Identity Service Engine (ISE), and what I found the most valuable, is the integration between Cisco wireless and the ISE. It is very useful. 

The integration support technology should be improved. We have more sites to the technology itself and before we only had to connect the access points to a controller. Now we use most of the pieces of what the wireless as a concept can provide. So more integration and support will be great. 

The program is very stable.

I believe the solution is scalable and it is easy to add more users.

The technical support is really good.

We have been working on Cisco for many years now, so we just upgraded to Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup was really easy and straightforward.

Cisco is more expensive than other solutions.

The reason why we chose Cisco over another solution, is that Cisco is very strong here in the Aruba and Ruckus region. We have a vendor specifically in Saudi Arabia. What I like about this solution, is that it is always available and it's up to me to integrate, something called the DNA. I like the features that Cisco provides and it a solution that's easy to work on. I like the integration between Cisco and all the other Cisco products when it comes to network roaming, the DNA. So this is the integration that I'm looking forward to integrating, Cisco wireless with the DNA.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this an eight. The reason why I don't give it a ten is because Cisco is rather expensive. I would like to see it being more affordable.

Our primary use case for this solution is setting up a wireless source for our clients to connect to the VPNs and our data centers.

We have found the ability to easily increase power valuable. The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low.

The firewall integration is not great and should be improved.

We have been using this solution for three years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 70 people using it in our organization. 

We do not have experience with customer service and support because we have not had issues.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took five hours.

We implemented the solution in-house, and approximately three people are required for implementation.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend the solution to new users.

We use this solution to provide wireless service in our hospitals.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is stable and the support is good.

The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports. The design of having only two physical ports is very bad.

This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product.

We have about ten thousand users in our environment.

We run different hospitals and on a daily basis and we have between eight and ten thousand clients.

Cisco is always number one in terms of technical support. There is no doubt that they are better than any other vendor.

I also have experience with solutions from Aruba and Avaya XE. We removed the Avaya units after their merger and are sticking with solutions from Cisco and Aruba.

I have a lot of experience with this solution, so I find the setup to be easy.

Between Cisco and Aruba, I would say that the features are similar. Each of them is better at different features.

Wireless solutions are not something that you need to change very often. We have older models installed and they are still working fine. Changing the entire environment involves a lot of money and a lot of effort.

My advice to anybody who is considering this type of solution is to first look at your ecosystem and then choose the product. Don't just choose one without looking at what other types of products, such as switches, you already have.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It's for networking, specifically for network access to our Internet.

Around 50 people are using Cisco Wireless WAN in my company. They are mainly developers and the IT team.

One of the main advantages is the support Cisco offer. They provide good support, and it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using this solution for six years. We are not using the latest version; therefore, we are exploring other potential solutions before upgrading.

I would rate stability a nine out of ten. It is quite stable.

I would rate Cisco's scalability an eight out of ten. It is a scalable product.

The initial setup is not complex, and installing the solution completely takes more than an hour.

A third-party expert, a service provider, did the deployment for Cisco Wireless WAN.

It is quite an expensive model.

I would definitely recommend using Cisco Wireless WAN.

Overall, I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten.

Let's say you are in Mauritius right now and that you have a company here. You have set up Cisco Wireless WAN in the company, and you are using your laptop and are connected to the Wi-Fi. For instance, if you go abroad to another branch of the same company and you use your laptop there, your device will still be connected to the Wi-Fi in your office in Mauritius. You don't need to type in the password again.

It's very secure.

I also like that now you can add a cellular connection to the Cisco router. So, if your operator is down, you can now still have one connection in the office with the cellular module.

The interface is a little bit difficult to understand at times. It would be good if Cisco were to make it user friendly so that everyone can easily configure it without the need to do certifications and courses to learn how to use all of the devices.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a stable solution.

It is easy to deploy.

It's a good solution, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.