What needs improvement with Cisco Enterprise Routers?

The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required to be made by making it cheaper. At times, our company needs to exchange the equipment because it is not supported anymore or because it is out of service. When it comes to Cisco Enterprise Routers, and you look at the cost of ownership, there is a need to consider the fact that my company undertakes projects that are on systems that should be running for more than fifteen or twenty years, which is an area that is always difficult. If you must exchange the equipment because it is no longer supported, then it would be nice if Cisco provided discounts for the new products, especially if you stay with the same supplier. In our company, we may use Cisco, Dell, or Aruba, especially in scenarios where Cisco does not allow or fulfill our requirements. They should be hardware exchange contracts when dealing with equipment from Cisco, Dell, or any independent vendor.

For deployment, you need a tech-savvy individual with extensive CLI experience. Occasional troubleshooting may require remote access, which could pose a minor challenge. The centralized management system simplifies patching, deployment, and configuration tasks, making it easier for tech-savvy personnel to support and maintain the equipment.

In my opinion, Cisco is not granular if we compare it to Juniper. In terms of the access lists and some other parts like if we delete one ACL, most of the parties are gone on the Cisco side. But in Juniper, I can delete fifty access lists. All the rules and policies are also granular and are based on the UNIX operating system or Linux operating system. Cisco needs to consider those in the market because Juniper is doing well. Some granular functions are required because they have all of the routing protocols with almost all the features.

The solution is expensive and difficult to manage.

The solution's cloud management capabilities could be better. Its smart licensing process needs to be simplified as well.

The solution's price could be better. Also, they could provide combined features for total security, including access points for Wi-Fi. In addition, there needs to be an integration with SD-WAN.

When we buy new hardware, since we are in Latin America, we have a very long wait in terms of getting the devices. We might wait six to eight months for delivery once we buy it.

I want the ability to create interfaces for the MAC addresses. The price has room for improvement.

I don't think I can improve the tool. For that, I would need to learn all of its features and how to use them. But for now, I am satisfied with the tool because it provides me with what I need. In short, I don't have any idea if I want any improvements in the solution. Sometimes, I find it hard to learn how some features of the router work. So, these are the issues that may arise when a user might not have knowledge about the product.

The cost is a bit high. The security of the solution could be a bit better. There are some complex aspects of the solution during the initial setup.

When compared to PEPLink, Cisco Enterprise Routers are less flexible, and you cannot have more than one user. The scalability could be improved.

The licensing structure is very convoluted, and the cost of the licenses includes a whole bunch of stuff that you'll never use.

We haven't really had any issues. They have recently upgraded the technology and have recently improved many things. Most of what we needed they recently updated. We aren't missing any features. The solution is expensive.

For the Enterprise Router, especially for Cisco, we want Cisco to have a less simple product and a more scalable product, so we don't have to choose from so many series. We'd like one device fit for many use cases. The scalability must be simplified. The lead time is pretty bad. It's worse than other products. We'd like them to speed up their speed of delivery. It can take almost 300 days at this point in order to get the devices. They are pretty expensive devices.

The solution is difficult to implement without a broad knowledge base. Subnetting for large organizations is complicated because you must understand the company hierarchy before starting to subnet. The process can be difficult so it helps to have experience or rely on other team members for advice.

The product would be more scalable if it could operate with other brands.

The solution could be priced better because sometimes it is expensive.

It only breaks if you're not using an up-to-date version of the iOS or are not doing upgrades. Also you are not refreshing your hardware. With Cisco, when you buy it, you know that for about five to ten years, you will not have issues. These assets, you refresh them and every five to ten years, you should be getting new equipment that is supported.

Cisco could improve by reducing the delays in receiving physical devices.

The overall price of Cisco Enterprise Routers should be reduced, it is expensive.

Performance is one area that could be improved. The stability of the devices is great, but performance-wise we find that upgrading the memory or changing the device entirely is sometimes necessary.

The price could be lowered.

I would like it if Cisco Routers had a longer lifecycle. That's what we need. We don't want to renew or implement a new model. One model should be available for at least five years. This seems impossible nowadays.

I would like the routers to have the same support and duration of support as the switches.

An area for improvement would be the power supply unit. This product also tends to have a short life cycle, which could be better.

The initial setup can be a little bit difficult. They should try to make it easier to set up for new users.

Sometimes, it can take a while to get used to a new version or additions which are made and this involves us going to the note and doing a lot of reading. There are many changes of which we are not aware. The technology should be addressed, the new protocols that are incorporated in a new version. A new way for registering the equipment might be needed. It can be hard for us to deploy a new version, as we lack the knowledge for its use. The installation process should be simplified, since it is quite complex in a new version. There are simply too many changes taking place. While we are still in the process of learning how to use a new version, another is sent. French language capabilities should be added. It is hard for us to adequately express ourselves in English.

Cisco could provide more information about their routers to allow customers a better understanding of their solutions. Cisco Enterprise Routers could improve by having some more advanced features.

The solution could be more stable and secure.

Cisco Enterprise Routers could improve by making their solution more user-friendly. Currently, users need to have extensive knowledge of networking to use them because there is only a command-line interface for the configuration. They should add a graphical interface to allow junior users guidance and more flexibility when doing the configuration.

The price could be better.

Over time things have changed where Cisco has not invested in improving the orchestration and simplifying it for people who do not want to get into the details. Cisco has not gone into that focus. Technologies such as MPLS and VPN, have become very difficult to use for many service providers. This is where you have the admission of software-defined networks which brought in a lot of simplicity when it comes to routing and functionality. What Cisco Routers needs to do to improve is what they have already done with the SD-WAN solution. It is a very, elegant solution, but even though it is a pretty comprehensive solution, one of the problems with the Cisco solution is many customers do not use all the features. They must have a category of customer premises equipment, specifically for the managed service providers and enterprise networks that can be much more cost-effective from an IT perspective. The configuration can be simplified at the GUI level. It should be easier because any telecommunication provider only has an enterprise network nowadays. When I am running an SD-WAN as an enterprise, I have features that are capable of finding an alternate path when there is latency. I have yet to find a solution to integrate them. For example, if I am a managed services provider for an SD-WAN customer, how do I make sure that this feature is automatically taken care of by the service provider side by monitoring its own option. This managing from the service provider side in the SD-WAN solution does not exist, it is all only static provisioning right now. When you are doing the original provisioning it happens, but dynamically when the network changes due to quirks in the network, how does it actually handle it. If there was this kind of features it would help Cisco to become the best in the process. You need to have a more solution-specific understanding. The parts management teams have to come up with features that will benefit the service provider and the enterprises if they want to be the best.

It can be very expensive, sometimes, to do the jump to the next router for your needs. It will be great if you can buy a variable router and then upgrade or enable features as you grow. Otherwise, it can become very expensive to have robust equipment. In the next release, I would like to see more free SD-WAN features and vertical solutions.

They take too much time to reboot or restart. Whenever we hard reset them, they take time. Cisco should resolve this issue.

While the commands are easy to understand, and you will find a mixture, if you put a question mark on them then it will create problems. The improvements will improve our company management and our system compatibility.

Prices could be better. I would like to see better reporting and also integration with other products.

We are evaluating and considering moving to SD-WAN, which is the latest one. As we are expanding, we require more coverage.

The price could be better. This product is already at the end of life stage, but if they continue to make this kind of product, they should make it affordable. All the new releases come with little flexibility and are expensive. In the next release, it would be helpful if they put some features like antivirus inside the router.

I would like to see more boundaries and better performance.

I would like to see support for software-defined networking. The routers could be more secure.

An area of improvement would be the way the licenses are managed because, at the moment, you pay for a license for each router as opposed to paying a once-off cost.

It's not really about how Cisco can be improved, but the utilities around it. For example, Fortinet has a good firewall and useful auditing tools with it. It also allows establishing centralize infrastructure, just by installing a Fortinet client software, VPN software, at the client end. However, we know that Cisco is also providing such a product in the name of AnyConnect. It is a concern over the cost aspect because of the budget we have available, Fortinet is much cheaper than the Cisco product, including the functionalities it provides. Cisco routers are an expensive product. Regarding Cisco usage in the future, it depends upon the increase in the immigration checkpoints. If our government decided to open 10 more immigration checkpoints, and other sites related to those, it would require more procuring of hardware, including the number of routers to support this.

We don't really see any places where Cisco is lacking. They are quite reliable. A specific client may have specific needs. There may be features they need that Cisco may not have. Each organization is unique in that sense. It would be nice if Cisco had the capability for packet capture. Depending on the customer, the initial setup could be complex. Technical support could be slightly more responsive.

It would be good if Cisco Enterprise Routers could improve their integration with other vendors. For example the AGLP protocol is supported by Cisco and not by any other vendors.

I haven't really delved deeply into the configuration, so from the router's point of view, I can't provide much of an opinion. From the switches perspective, I feel there isn't much that can be done because again, I have delved into the configuration. When we set up a LAN and we use Cisco, it makes life easy. If instead, we buy it from the distributor, it comes provisioned with the licenses. We just plug it in, and the network goes up, except when we need to do a VLAN. The only other thing we struggled with from time to time is when we were configuring access points through a controller. The challenge we had was because our client used a firewall and they used a proxy, which gave us many challenges in relation to the configuration. But other than that, it went well. The price should be reduced. Our clients are mainly government and they want to implement CCAT6A and they come up with extremely stringent conditions. It made it difficult for us to even bid because they want gold certified partners. It became a bit tricky for us to submit the bids.

With Cisco Linksys, we need better pricing. Cisco is an expensive product, much more so that other products, such as those by HP. The Cisco Switches and Routers price should be reduced. We need better pricing and support. For Cisco Routers, we need better pricing, better implementation, and support.

I think that it would be better if they can create menus and instructions in the Ukrainian language. The dashboards and control system are in need of improvement. I would like to have functionality added for cybersecurity.

Compared to equipment by other vendors, such as Check Point, the physical size of the units is bigger. A smaller footprint would be an improvement. We sometimes experience delays when a router is processing that requires us to reboot it.

The DNS system, which is very important, has not yet been implemented. All new Cisco switches are Power over Ethernet (PoE) switches that are DNL supported. The price could be improved. In Bangladesh, we do not have any expert-level support. We are having many issues implementing the DNS system.

These routers are not easy to use for non-professional users, so simplification is something that would improve this product. Having a well-designed graphical user interface would make this product easier to use.

Some of the features could be more secure. For example, firewall features could have better security. There are some routers that come with this feature. It can be implemented with ACL, but there is only one destination source with IP based filtering. If it is possible then it would be content-based. It is available in the new routers. If we were to purchase the new Data Centre Series router, it would include this feature.

Cisco has a lot of problems with the graphical interfaces used for management.

Cisco could update or release a new GUI. It needs a more extensive and comprehensive GUI, specifically for people who don't like using CLIs. I don't mind CLI but, I know based on my experience that not everyone prefers it. Unfortunately, Cisco promotes only to use CLI. I am teaching Cisco up to CCNP level to my students, but up until today, I haven't been able to take the Cisco exams because we are banned from doing so in our country due to sanctions. We cannot even take the Cisco exams out of the country. I wanted to travel to Turkey to try, however, I was told I wouldn't be recognized even if I pass the exam.

The pricing of the solution needs improvement.

The configuration needs improvement. Most routers, like HP or Aruba, use a UI interface. Those solutions are similar and uniform. It's easier for us compared to Cisco because with Cisco you are not using normal commands. They need to enhance the UI to make it more usable.

The capacity of the equipment should be improved. Cisco sells expensive equipment, but it does not really have greater performance compared to the price paid for it. So, we're paying very high prices for medium — or low to medium — capacity equipment. One thing that I would like to see is a more user-friendly dashboard. Really it generally needs easier capabilities to do basic management of the product and the system for users who are not Cisco employees or representatives. Though it is not directly the product, their technical support services can be improved. We have not had many problems with the product, but we pay for support and they have not really solved the issues we submitted to our satisfaction. It is the same with Cisco iOS. We know that when we install the next version, we have come to expect that something will break. Testing upgrades should be improved as well.

The scalability of this solution needs to be improved because the amount of data gets larger and larger as does the network. This should be a part of the site share equipment. In the next release, I would like to see cloud management and cloud security. Also, for our customers, if they could have all of their tools in one place for monitoring and configuring their equipment, and it should be very secure.

It would be great if there was a graphical user interface or something to interface with the router. If I only have one LAN port in which I want to connect more than one device, I have to buy an add-on card so that I can have two LAN ports. The smaller devices and low-end routers have about four LAN ports. This solution is a high-end device but has only one. It would be preferable if they offered more LAN ports. I don't know whether the solution can be cloud-managed. When I am away from work, it would be great if I could still have access and manage things, check the configuration, etc. Right now, I don't have a way of monitoring things if I am not at my desk. I need a feature introduced where I can be able to tell if my provider is giving me constant capacity. The solution should be able to alert me to when the capacity fluctuates so I can go back to my provider and tell ask them why they are giving me less capacity than I am paying for.

The pricing could be improved.

Currently, we use the 4000 series of the solution, however, there were issues with the 1900 series. The solution needs to offer some security features in a future release.

We would like to see the security improved.

The support for SD-WAN technology is not mature yet. I would like to see the setup time reduced.

The cost of this solution is a little bit high compared to others. Some of our customers have asked that this solution have a 10G connection.

High-availability management needs to be improved. When one switch fails, it will ask you to come back and use a different one. If they can negate or reduce the modem delay, that would be great. When we are performing maintenance, it takes too long to reboot the device.

In terms of room for improvement, I think that there is a need for additional administration. We have seen other products, such as the Cisco Email Security Appliance and the Cisco Web Security Appliance, now have a web-based interface. We would like to see this in the routers, as well. It would make our administration easier. Considering the increase in data that is being processed across networks, I think that increasing the CPU size to boost processing power would be wise. People are now trying to do more analytics, so this would be helpful. I think that it would be better for analytics if the local storage, on the router itself, were increased. This would allow us to store more data for analysis as we are trying to secure our network.

Their support has room for improvement. The regional agents are not that great. The devices can be a bit of an energy hog. We would like to see a more durable power supply system because being in a third world country we have frequent power outages and it takes a bit of time for our generators and stuff to kick in which then leads to power surges and whatnot. Even with the proper power management system, it can also affect the devices themselves.

It comes with 3-1 default box and other parts. You have to buy additional lamp parts, which adds to the cost if they could, but affect the number of parts with the default configuring.

Recently, there seems to be a lot of people who are leaning towards Juniper CLI, which is easier to pick up.