What needs improvement with Cisco Ethernet Switches?

There is room for improvement in terms of cost. The pricing and hardware warranty renewal costs are more expensive than other products.

AI technology must be involved in the future. Also, it would be better to have a little bit lower price or another licensing model.

The platform's management features need improvement.

While Cisco Ethernet Switches are already quite advanced, one area for improvement could be integrating a single dashboard for both wired and wireless networks. Additionally, enhancing cyber protection features directly within the switches could be beneficial to prevent network vulnerabilities and downtime caused by malicious activity.

The vendor is presently working with large digital network architectures and additional software, as it is now willing to become a software-focused company instead of a hardware one. Cisco Ethernet Switches presently provide two options, either the user can utilize the basic features or the advanced software. Previously, advanced features were included in the basic package, but now they are provided as add-ons that need to be purchased separately for an extensive period of three or five years. As part of the advanced features in the solution, there is Digital Network Architecture (DNA) that provides insights, multiple dashboards and monitoring capabilities over Nexus and Catalyst switches from Cisco. Sometimes, customers need to buy features for Cisco Ethernet Switches that they do not require or use. The basic switches like the C1000 from the vendor don't have the DNA feature, but advanced version switches like Cisco Ethernet Switches have made the add-on purchases mandatory to avail certain features, which makes it difficult for several users.

There are instances where the commands you are familiar with might change or be replaced with newer syntax. They could provide details to know about the changed processes. Additionally, its pricing needs improvement.

The solution's reliability should be improved. We see that some ports must be reset when in the hang mode. Only after a reset can we make use of those ports. There could be some internal or external reasons for the hang. We are looking for an improved reliability aspect.

We can easily integrate the product with any OEM solutions. But in the case of an already existing network, we encounter technical issues related to following protocols.

From a system integrator's perspective, Cisco must train system integrators, partners, and customers about their services. Cisco has many products like switches, routers, and now SD-WAN, and they need to educate the partners and customers about these services.

The more expensive versions can be more expensive, and the switches cannot take the heat. Some of the rooms they are in are too hot for the switch. We need more management tools for the solution. I don't have any notes for new features. There should be fiber switches that could be capable of doing more things.

We have experienced some issues with Cisco SG350 switches. We have not been able to use this switch at normal temperatures as it automatically reboots.

The technical support has room for improvement.

Cisco can improve its supply chain. Currently, we have to wait up to eight months for a switch.

The price of the solution has room for improvement.

The price of the solution could be reduced.

To keep up with the market, the solution should have better evolution and innovation. More security features should be added.

We often face issues with Cisco software, and while they do release patches to fix bugs, I believe they need to improve. Huawei, one of Cisco's competitors, is better in this regard. While I'm not a fan of Huawei due to my environment, clients insist on using it because it is cheaper. Despite this, I think Cisco could improve its software. Cisco should strive to improve the software for its switches. To make the switch more user-friendly, Cisco should create a system where a user can simply connect their cable and access the GUI interface without needing to configure the device first on the CLI.

An area for improvement in Cisco Ethernet Switches is its command-line interface, for example, for Juniper, because it's not working if you want to do some implementation. Still, for any system integrator or simple integration, it works. Generally, an issue arises if you miss a semicolon or a space, for example, or if you add one word. It can be tricky because people usually forget minor details in a configuration. What could make Cisco Ethernet Switches better is a rollback feature. If you can quickly roll back the changes you made and revert to your old configuration, that would be helpful. Another area for improvement is the response time of the technical support team. It could be faster.

Their firmware could be better secured against vulnerabilities or other exploits. Also, only selected catalyst switches are allowed to onboard to Cisco SD Access technology.

The solution should offer a method for user-based load balancing. Load sharing exists but the only balancing available is for the server load and not the Internet. Most engineers now prefer a GUI that is not part of this solution. In my experience, GUI is not required because the solution's commands are very familiar, easy to understand, and available via Google or the solution's portal.

The quality of Cisco Ethernet Switches could be better.

There's are other products that are better for network programmability. Cisco isn't as programmable as some others vendors. For example, on devices running iOS XE, you dont have candidate configuration datastore when you use netconf like you would have on arista, juniper or others. Changes are directly applied on running configuration so there is no room for error once you commit changes to devices. So it will be good for them to implement other config datastores because when it go to programming, review it's important so we need to be abe to have at least a candidate configuration datastore.

Cisco Ethernet Switches could improve if they removed the command line interface and replaced it with a better GUI. It is too difficult at the moment, we always need to figure out the commands.

The pricing can be improved to make them more suitable for SMBs. In terms of features, they tick all the boxes as of now. That could be because we tailor the solution around the product. I have not seen anything that pulls me back or is not working well for me. However, there could be better integration with the network monitoring systems. It doesn't mean it is currently not there, but there could be better discoverability with some of the network monitoring systems to be able to have more visibility. When you're setting up a control room, you can have more visibility into what is going on in the network. It has been doing that, but it can do that more.

Feature-wise, almost all the features are there, but an improvement would be to change their market intention. Almost all the Cisco switches are now coming with a license called DNA. D for Delta, N for number and A for apple. That feature is required, he must purchase it and it is a mandatory thing that has been introduced. This is not matching with the Asian market, because let's say you are purchasing a vehicle and you don't want to have a reverse camera, right? But if the manufacturer is forced, fully telling you that you definitely should buy it, this is not fair in that way. DNA licenses, in most cases, are not required, but it should be told to the customers and added to the quotation, because we cannot remove it. This is not matching or suitable for the Asian market. It is not a requirement of the customer and it is forcefully added by the vendor. It's just a license, which you have to purchase for one year or three years, and it will never be used in some cases. In some cases, some specific customers may require that there should be the option to add it. But if it is not required by the customer, it should be optional. In terms of what I would like to see in the next release, it would be good if they could introduce a switch which can work on cloud and on a local deployment. Maybe the same switch will work. Because some switches are only working alone with local deployments, and some switches are working with cloud based environments. So if the same switch could work on both cloud and from its node, that will be great.

In terms of what could be improved, there is the bulk issue that is sometimes experienced with the Cisco products we've used. I don't know how it could be possible to be done, but it would be very good if there was an automated patching system. It would be a very big and difficult one, because some of these routers or switches or products are not even within an internet environment. This is especially limited with the switches. Routers can be connected to the internet and switches might not even have internet access and might just be for the local area network. If it has an internet connection, that would be great and if it has an automated parking code inside of the POE this would help them to patch without the user's input. In the next release, I would like to see bulk fixing. That is basically what I do now. If we could have an automated patch for Cisco to just be standard for patching switches or routers or firewalls by default without the input of anyone adjusting, that would be great.

Network setup and Multicast are critical components for us and when you're also programming for video streams it can become quite complicated. It's more of an issue when you're dealing with public institutions and there might be a lack of tech-savvy people. When it comes to the video streams, if you're sending real-time video in a security system, and you drop packets, the information is lost and you can't get it back. That's a critical aspect for us. One of the issues we have is that the guy doing the video system knows how that works, and the network people know how the network works, but they don't know how to communicate with each other. The industry is trying to adapt to sort out that problem.

Its management should be improved. It is not easy to scale.

The management of the solution could improve.

If we can have fewer bugs on our switches, that would be great. We had bugs that caused the switch to reboot. There is probably a problem with the software. Their technical support can be improved in terms of response time and overall efficiency.

In terms of features, all features are there. I can't find anything new that needs to be added. Its price, however, is a bit higher than other brands and can be improved.

The number of bugs that come up on Cisco Ethernet Switches can be reduced, and the stability can be improved, in particular with the recent iOS. The scalability can be improved as well. Up to a certain network size, it is easy to scale, but after that, it becomes difficult.

The interface and dashboard could look better.

The biggest pain point we had was getting the switches delivered. However, that likely was due to COVID and everything else. I don't think it's a Cisco issue. It's just a supplier issue, as they seem to have a hard time getting deliveries in order. One thing we did have to work around is, on the broadcast side, we're reliant on the PTP protocol, precision time protocol, and the Cisco switches in general, don't support that. Some do, however, the majority of ones we're using did not. We worked around it, however, that would be one area for us that would have been simply solved with more capabilities for PTP on Cisco's end.

I think the price should be cheaper to be able to afford more.

Cisco doesn't do everything 100% perfect. There are competitors that have developed simpler and cheaper options, for example. The solution really should offer better pricing. It would help them stay competitive. The product is a bit difficult to manage as there's a different management system now. The network management system could be improved.

Cisco can improve its stability for the BGP protocol. It is not stable while recalculating the BGP table. Its price should also be improved. It is very expensive.

Typically, mid-range customers don't have a need for all of the features embedded in Cisco's software. The solution is a bit difficult. I don't like the new way the licensing is set up. I don't like that you have to have a license of 10 years to use the switch. I don't understand that policy. It's not useful for the customer. There are some features in previous versions or previous models that were automatically included in the software. However, now, in the new switches, they don't have it included. You have to go to an advanced version.

The price could be better. It should be affordable for any organization.

Cisco has a lot of propriety protocols compared to other products, such as Arista Networks.

Technical support in India needs to be improved.

It could be cheaper. It'll also help if it can support more network utilization.

It needs to be more secure. They have to find a more secure way of action. They should have ways to stop the attacks. Because of the cyber attacks, they should focus more on VoIP.

I don't really have a complaint about the features that the solution has. It can be a bit expensive, however, it's not as expensive as Meraki switches. The user interface, the UI, could be better. Going command mode to make hardcore changes to the config. It's not so futuristic environment for configuration purposes. While you can scale the solution, it can get expensive.

For people who are new, the interface can be confusing. For me, however, I don't think that there's anything that can be simplified because I'm used to the command line and the old way of working with Cisco switches. I find them simple.

There are some GUI configuration improvements that they can implement in the future for the product models.

In the future, some of the features could be updated to support the latest functions.

The GUI is not that easy. They need to work on the CLI, and to do that you have to have technical resources in-house if you want to do it yourself.

Ease of configuration for none cisco experts would be an improvement. Pricing can also do with some improvement to make it more competitive with competitor products with similar functionality.

I don't have any issues on the technical aspects, but on the business side of things, I see that almost all the Catalyst and high-grade switches are now required to have a VMA license. Sometimes businesses may not require those licenses because they are just using them as the third street. It's a business challenge which we're facing in the Asian countries. Customers don't require a VMA environment at the moment, but it's essential to purchase a VMA license for some of the switches. It's a challenge that we're facing during sales or presales because when it comes to the competition like Cisco SSL and the others, they don't have that kind of a restriction. If I would like to purchase a new switch, it can be a higher-end switch like a Chassis switch or a basic L2 or L3 switch—any switch where we can purchase a support bundle and install and use it. But with the VMA license, we need to activate the license, or the Ethernet switch will not perform. It won't work. If Cisco Ethernet Switches can work both on-prem and in the cloud, it would be an advantage. Other vendors are already offering this option. It would be a great added advantage to use the same switch in standalone mode, as a local MM or VMA, and for cloud control.

You can only configure both switches and routers via the command-line. They should work to take on the newer HP and Aruba approach where you can configure from a URL or command line. It could be useful if they developed the GUI interface to enable us to configure all features such as VLANs, port assignment, routing, DSP, through the GUI. That would make it easier for beginners. Cisco products are expensive compared to any other solution. Now, there are many competitors that give the same level of services - such as Juniper or Aruba.

We are less in the Cloud because the Cloud technologies didn't work so well. That happened in all of the companies where I've been engaged.

The initial setup can be simplified.

Cisco switches are good as they are, but it would be a major feature if they have built-in routers. Some of the Microchip switches have routers built in the same device. They have a router switch. For some of the sites, we deploy such switches because the client does not want a separate router and a separate switch. So, we go for a router switch with maybe 24 ports. Some of them are fiber, and some of them are ethernet. It would be a major improvement to what Cisco is already doing. Behind the scenes, a lot of scripting and stuff like this is happening. A lot of workload can be lifted if Cisco had a good GUI. If you look at Microchip switches, they have a good GUI in addition to the CLI.

The pricing should be reduced so that they are more competitive.

The price could be improved by being reduced. The new software has been released in Cisco Switches, which is meeting with the market's demands. Earlier they used to have many different models. This solution is still lacking in some areas.

The solution could always benefit from some more security features. For example, they need something which is mainly used for enterprise networks that allow for identity-based security or authentication. The pricing of the switches could be lowered. Right now, they are quite expensive. The enterprise-level switches should have a simpler deployment. They should make it possible for lower-skilled workers to be able to deploy the product. It should be just as easy as turning them on, powering them up, and connecting the PCs, which would be the same as or similar to a generic simple switch. Many users can't use Cisco's advanced features and won't be able to deploy Cisco's advanced CLI or other management tools otherwise.

REST API should be first priority than traditional CLI.

Cisco is now competing with companies that are putting out cheaper switches so the price could be something that could be improved upon. However, if you want the best in the industry then you need to pay for it. Cisco could also open the API up to work closely with other systems.

Integration with third-party products could be improved.

There is a focus on improving the UI for managing the higher-end switches and routers, but not the traditional ones. Putting in a more complete management infrastructure would help when it comes to handling lower-end switches. These switches are pretty expensive to put into place, so if they could bring the price point down then it would be really good.

The cost is very prohibitive both for us as well as other organizations. It's very expensive to buy Cisco switches. Among our colleagues, we find that we're not alone in thinking it's too high. Everyone's complaining about this. We have many switches that we've used sine 2006 and that are on the old OS, but we don't want to switch them out because the cost to do so would be quite high. The graphical user interface could be a bit better. When we have new employees, we want them to onboard quickly and to be able to understand the switches. Having a better graphical interface would help us do that and help them understand the switches faster. While I prefer command line, many are not good with it or do not prefer that method.

We are only using Cisco for switches and for the IP telephony call center. It needs to be manageable, easy, and fast with Windows and other GUIs. They must improve their interface and stability.

The typical areas of concern for Cisco Ethernet Switches are not technical but cost including support costs. I’ve never liked the fact that end users cannot download security patches without a support contract. I’ve had trouble getting approval to renew Cisco support contracts due to the cost. The additional charges for the DNA capabilities of the switches further prices the switches are out of contention for a lot of IT shops. I understand the development of this technology is expensive but costs are sometimes borderline ridiculous.

Cisco needs to include new features to attract new customers.

Cisco has a layer three rugged switch. I don't know if they have it. The one I use is layer 2 only. Cisco should provide field switches, outdoor switches that have the capability for layer 3. We've had hardware problems like SSDS, ports, networking, things like that. They should maximize the number of ports. For me, that's important because we have some sites that the industrial switches lack ports so we have to install two industrial switches.

Cisco has a licensing procedure that is very complicated and it changes every six months.

The interface needs improvement. The solution could use more features and more functionality. The price could be lower. It's quite expensive.

We would like to have the option of two power supplies on these switches. It is important for us because these switches are installed in our data center and critical departments. These units have to be available all of the time. I would like to see this solution automatically store multiple versions of the configuration file. For example, Juniper switches will save forty versions of the configuration, while Cisco will only store one. If you want to keep more than one then you need to make it manually. If you need to restore it then you will have to use the saved file to do that manually, as well. In the large switches, they do keep one primary image and the backup image, which is good, but it is not like Juniper. I can roll back to any version within the last forty that have been committed. It's a very, very nice feature that I would like to see in Cisco equipment.

The licensing needs to be improved. You have to know upfront what kind of license you require. If you want to check quality assurance then you need to use an IP-based license. You can get that done, but sometimes it's a nuisance. For example, if you want to run certain commands then they are not all available because it depends on your license. On the new switches, it is a bit hard to do the SPANning. The SPAN ports on the 9K series should be improved.

At the moment the switches that you have can't scale because they've got their control plane and data plane in the same device. The problem with that is you're limited to the number of switches you can string along because of limitations with VLAN. VLAN does have limitations, but with Software-Defined Networking there is no limitation. This is bringing about changes in the networking field that are long-needed. Ultimately, I would like to see all of the switches support SDN. Switches should be made stackable, even if they are not of the same model. Now stacking is another technology that a lot of switches can benefit from, but not all switches are capable of stacking. There are some switches that are capable of stacking, but not all switches. As a rule, in my view, I feel stacking should work between different switches and at the moment it doesn't. For example, if you want to build a stack, all the switches in the stack have to be literally the same. So that another area of technology which could be different. You could stack switches, even if they're not exactly the same, but they have a way of operating such that they can work together. It would be nice because it means people don't have to throw away things just because they can't meet what they want.

The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly. Cisco should offer different equipment. Some features which are needed at present, for example, require making ethernet loopbacks for testing purposes are not available. They need to offer something like this.

What I would improve in this product is simulation. You can simulate switches, but you cannot really simulate industrial Cisco switches. The ability to use industrial switches is missing and I would like to see compatibility with industrial switches. I would like to see an updated feature search toolkit. The ability to look for certain features and select the features that you want or need would help to target desired results and workflow. To know what a tool is able to provide for you and the devices that can be used with those features would make research and configuration a lot easier.

The dashboard needs some minor improvements. Sometimes it is difficult to find items, other times it is quick, it just depends. Most of the feedback we receive are not complaints but suggestions or ideas about the dashboard. The stability could be improved.

Pricing could be lower. It is difficult to look for additional features to be added because there a lot of different switches, different models, and usually each model is designed according to the number of ports. It's a satisfactory unit within the usage area for that model.

Lower the pricing to compete with Aruba and HPE. If they could provide a management solution for all systems then it would be an improvement. They have a product, but it's a license, and I have to pay for it. It is difficult to manage one hundred switches in many areas, without having a managing board. I would like a management product to manage both the small business and the Catalyst. In my business, I have all of these products and I have to configure them one by one, so the troubleshooting and the monitoring of each can be challenging. Also with a managing board, it would improve the scalability as it would be easier to handle the traffic and monitoring several users. This may be something that they are already working on, but it would be an improvement if they could add a layer of security to layer two and layer three to protect the server and to protect the data.

For Cisco, the interface between fiscal small business switches and the Cisco Catalyst or Enterprise switch is a little bit different. So, I needed to take some time to understand how this will impact the network if we plan to scale it in the future and to learn the different interfaces. I think it would be better for Cisco to unify the interfaces between their products. It might make it easier for users to use different models concurrently as different versions of switches and improve scalability. It is not really a feature of the solution itself, but I also think that the technical support directly from the company should be better in the area of handling integrations.