What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless?

The main disadvantage of Cisco Wireless is its cost - it's expensive. Its interface is not easy. However, I like it since I am an engineer.

For pricing, Cisco has to make an effort, or Cisco has to improve the distribution channel. It means when I send an email or when I have a complaint, for example, there is a Cisco distributor, and it's in competition with others. I have to escalate this case to Cisco, and it will help us to improve our business with Cisco and prevent us from going to other solutions like Aruba or now Fortinet. We have some good switches and access point controllers now. So, sometimes, when we find some problems with Cisco's distribution channel, we switch our customers to other brands.

The security and encryption features of Cisco Wireless are robust but need to be updated compared to other providers. Cisco offers enterprise-grade encryption. Setting up a radio server based on networking filtering may require some effort to configure profiles. Once established, Cisco provides clean and straightforward possibilities for configuring functionalities like setting up a radio server system. The solution's pricing is high. Pricing, features, and innovation are the fundamentals of choosing a provider or supplier. Despite the higher price, we migrated to other profiles like Ruckus and Omada because they offer more robust solutions. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that Ruckus is one of the top-tier providers, with Cisco falling behind.

The product could improve the security system's alertness to detect and respond to intrusions more effectively.

There are areas for improvement with Cisco Wireless, as well as with wireless technology in general. For instance, while Wi-Fi 6 offers significant advancements, some unresolved issues and quirks have delayed our migration to this standard.

Cisco Wireless needs to improve pricing. I understand that Cisco products are typically more expensive than other vendors. Therefore, I believe that adjusting the pricing could potentially be beneficial. Discounts may be available depending on the customer or type of purchase, which could help offset the higher costs.

Assurance capabilities must be improved. There should be more Assurance features on the Wireless LAN Controller. A lot of it is bundled into the DNA Center. Having a little more Assurance regarding what the RF Spectrum looks like will be good. Juniper Mist has a lot of analytical data on the dashboard. The customers would be compelled to look at DNA Center as a longer-term and more comprehensive solution if Cisco were to give them an insight into some of the Assurance capabilities that might be available in DNA Center. The tool must provide something like RF Neighbor. It must enable organizations to receive signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio and see how clients perform in their wireless network. It must have a cap. If we want additional functionality to see our entire network, that's where DNA Center fits in.

The security must be improved. The vulnerabilities are easily exploitable. Security features must be added.

What my company doesn't like about the product is related to the coverage it provides to access points, an area which is one of the most important ones for us. One of the bad things about Cisco Wireless is that with every new wireless controller, the access points are shown as out of service. The oldest wireless access points in our company cannot, most of the time, work with the latest wireless controller offered by Cisco.

They should introduce zero interference capabilities.

The product’s interface must be improved.

Sometimes our customers do not get proper IP addresses from the DHCP pool. Clients should see our organization’s pop-up page when they connect to our SSID.

The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions.

The solution doesn't have much coverage area. The product should improve the licensing structure. The solution should allow administrators to view and provide more access points to users through the mobile application.

I would like to see centralized management, something like what Aruba offers. The current issue with Cisco is I don't have centralized management. For example, we're building wireless controllers that are basically standalone, and something like a centralized, single management pane would be nice. Something like Cisco Prime, or rather, an improved version of that would be very, very good. The initial setup can be difficult for beginners. It is a pricey product.

The reporting tool in Cisco Wireless could improve. If I am trying to receive information about a client or user, it's cumbersome to retrieve the information on the controller system. If I'm trying to find out where a client's been, it's cumbersome. You need another tool for Historical logs, but it should be all in one.

The main concern is the length and overlapping. We have to put on four to six access points on the same floor, and we face the issue of overlapping areas. If Cisco can extend the range of their indoor APs, we would need to install just one or two access points, and it would eliminate the problem of the overlapping area. They should provide built-in features for safe authentication. Right now, we integrate with ISE and FortiClient for this feature. We first check the NAC, and after the NAC and before the domain, a token password installed on their mobile or a physical token is required to join the network. If Cisco had built-in authentication, we would be able to eliminate one product from our network.

We've recently had hardware issues which have caused us some problems. There are some models that have more coverage than ours. We'd like for them to work towards providing more coverage across models. The solution is a bit expensive.

We use a Cisco product called Room Kit for meetings. It would be nice if Cisco could improve that. I would also like a cloud solution.

There are some features I would like to have in Cisco Wireless, such as Telemetry and other IoT. However, they are available in the new version of the solution.

The solution could improve by having an advanced model with a controller. Additionally, the solution could be more secure.

Cisco moved from the 5000 series, which was a different OS, to a newer OS, right. The 9800, for example, practically improved how a wireless switch or wireless controller should work, which was not so good in terms of Cisco in the earlier versions. It's improved a lot, however, if you are using older versions, you are on a different OS, and it's not as good as it is now. Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier. The interface could be improved.

Because my wireless controller is not fully compatible with the latest AC and AX compatible devices, we have been experiencing some issues with the wireless controller as technology evolves. We have plans to replace it. Previously it was working fine, but now we have faced several issues. We will tweak them until we find a good solution. Let's see where this goes in the future. It should be fully compatible with other devices.

Cisco Wireless should have a single administration point, so we don't need to log into different controllers. It should be a single pin where we can centrally manage all the controllers in something like Prime. We are using Arista, so I would recommend a service that offers that kind of cloud setup for wireless.

The biggest pain point has been keeping our people and the vendor up to speed on the technology. It's getting our staff to understand that opening up a laptop and connecting to the WLAN is not the same as triangulating and trying to figure out where an IV pump is. So when you're trying to use the real-time location services, I think it's that shift from your density and your overlap. For example, you used to be able to stick an access point up if something was a little weak in an area. Now, if you stick that access point up, you might have too much coverage in that area, which is as bad as too little coverage. I think it's hard for everybody to get their heads around that. It's not just the vendor—it's also the customers. And how do we continue to partner and ensure that we're all going together as the technology changes.

Cisco Wireless does not have a dashboard that would make it easier for people to manage the solution, such as Cisco Meraki where you are able to monitor the network through the dashboard and everything is visible making it easier. There are many things you can do with the dashboards. With Cisco Wireless if you have to manage the switches, backbone, or update the controllers you have to have someone with Cisco certification or know someone who can support you with the management of the solution. I have colleagues that have difficulties when I am away making changes to the Cisco Wireless devices and this is one of the reasons we are switching this solution to Cisco Meraki.

The wireless LAN controllers at the time when we started rolling out, we went with it simply due to the fact that everything else worked that was Cisco. We figured, if everything else works and we're satisfied with it, let's go that route. However, now people want more access points and more spots. And if you give everybody coverage, the cost is crazy high. You can either say, "No, we can't," or you can go with the cheaper product, even slightly cheaper, plus you get more APs out there for more coverage. At least with the WLC 2500 that we've been using, you can't take just the stock AP from them. You have to use lightweight firmware. You turn it into a lightweight AP and then you can join it to, or provision it to, the wireless controller, which should be automatic. In most cases, it works pretty well, however, it's still not there yet, as far as plugging it into this network that's going to tunnel back to the controller. I would say it works 7 out of 10 times. For the price, it should be a 10 out of 10. Especially with Cisco running an entire Cisco network with CDP all over the place, there should be no reason it doesn't tunnel back every single time. And yet, there are a few times where it doesn't. It got to the point where, when I prevent in APs, I just take them directly to the switch that the controller is plugged into and provision them there instead of just plugging them in like you should be able to. The software on offer is not great. Cisco lacks in software updates, surprisingly. They don't update their firmware too much for the controller. This is not something you want to be done constantly as it does make downtime, however, I would like to see them more than once a year. Unless there's a critical flaw, or you're running an early release. They're their main releases, I want to say year after year, it's been maybe once a year, and then you have to push it out to all your APs. Their software's really clunky. It's not very user-friendly, which you can see that as a good thing and a bad thing. We should learn this stuff, but at the same time, it shouldn't be overly difficult. You shouldn't have your options hidden in menus. You shouldn't have to go 25 minutes deep to get to some security options for a specific SSID. Also the way the group their security settings is a little bit backward to me. It's not done by SSID. There's just a security tab. Then, you have to link back and forth through that. However, that's something that you're going to fight with through every controller, every different type of device. We all wish they were organized differently.

The solution could be more stable.

The pricing could be reduced.

The price could be better.

We sometimes have issues with user load. We have close to 12 users and we have performance issues, especially when we are on video calls. There are lags and connectivity issues in those situations and the throughput is not that good. From our end, performance and connectivity could be improved. I'd like to see features such as app control, access control, and some level of a firewall feature at the level of the access points, features that are available at the firewall level, so that we can have security and manageability at WiFi level.

I'd like to have better voice security. What they offer now is not good enough to protect us from an attack or a hacker. The solution requires a firewall body inside a wireless controller so that we can define a few more things and prevent attacks.

Obviously there are new requirements around WPA-3 and Wi-Fi 6, more wireless assurance, and those types of things. So we're looking at all of those options in terms of their next product suite.

Its licensing model and cost should be improved.

Simplification in terms of deployment would be good. The need for different boxes should be improved as well. The architecture is becoming complex. It's not a three-layer architecture; it's only two layers, and the access is based on the leaf and spine. However, there are lots of components, and we need to add more components and more licenses for services. This ends up becoming costly.

I would improve the Wi-Fi range. Sometimes, in some rooms the signal could be a bit better, a little stronger.

One of the issues with Cisco, particularly for smaller companies, is the cost. A small company can't afford to pay the price of a Cisco product. The price is a very important factor for our customers.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together. I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

The coverage has given us a few issues. We have some of the wireless devices flooding. The scalability is off. It needs to be better. If they could offer better coverage, we'd be much happier.

Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba. The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing. They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better.

The integration with our CM and other technologies could improve this solution. If it could detect other networks better, when it comes to security, and have the ability to mark or block the suspicious activity when known would be a benefit and should be in an upcoming release.

I am in the Middle East, in Isreal, and the problem that we have is with the support. It's not like Europe or America, which have better support. In this part of the world, support is the weak side of this solution. It is very difficult to get in touch with Cisco support if we need them. I would like to have the option for on-premises support, rather than only having remote support available. This the biggest concern that I have because without on-premises support, we have to call another country for the best service.

The pricing is above average. They are a pretty expensive option. If clients don't have the budget, it can be hard to afford. The company should work to reduce the price and make them more competitive. The solution would be better if there was some sort of server type of tool that's included in the package. If there was something that could help you fine-tune the solution a bit easier, it would be helpful.

I have nothing that's outstanding at this point that I think needs to be improved. Cisco has been solid so I don't have much to complain about. It's a little more money, however. I just configure it and it works for years, which is great. That's what I love about it. I know Cisco has a Meraki brand, which uses a lot of cloud-based technology. I wouldn't mind if Cisco allowed their premiere devices to be able to have that cloud-based support as well, or cloud-based management. That would be a nice feature.

The flexibility on the controllers isn't that great. We always have to inject a third-party if we want to do things on social media, etc. If you have a guest network, you can make some connections with guest networks within your social media account — that's not the case with the standard solution from Cisco. You always have to get a third-party solution. Our solution is prehistoric — it's seven years old. Still, they have perfectly served all of our needs. But now the market is changing. Because of COVID-19, more and more people are using wireless solutions. They're using Teams. They have bandwidth issues. That's a limitation with Cisco — you have to change all your APs again. There's no way to upgrade it to make it faster and better, overall. The only thing you can do is add more access points, but then you have to license each access point.

The biggest reason why we could no longer continue with Cisco Wireless was because of the high cost to upgrade everything. It was disappointing that Cisco treated us as just another big company, and did not offer any leeway on their pricing given that we are an educational institute. And although the system we had in place from Cisco Wireless was good enough over the last ten years, it started to show its age when pushed to its limit during the pandemic. Generally, and this isn't so much a question of support, it was also very difficult for us to determine exactly what the problem was when we had a problem. We didn't have enough tools for diagnosis on the system, in terms of identifying who is connected where at a certain point in time and so on. We would have liked more tools when it comes to diagnosis and traceability.

There are some areas of improvement in roaming and streaming. In the next release, I would like to see VPN features and the client match feature available in Aruba Wireless. Additionally, I would like a feature to see where a particular client is during roaming and the information about a client should be shared better throughout their connection activity.

In the next release, I would like to have support for Wi-Fi 6.

In general, the solution completely meets our needs. However, the wireless controllers themselves could be more reliable. When they work in high availability mode, we have had some issues with them. Sometimes the cluster dissipates, the primary controller fails and the secondary does not completely switch on reducing functionality.

In the future, it would be great if the solution had a GPS feature that could have the ability through access points to locate cell phone users inside a local wireless network, for example in a stadium.

I don't see any features that are really lacking. The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues.

The regulatory domain seems to be hardcoded into the system and we need a simple way to change it in wireless APs. Power level improvements and increased antenna dBi are needed when compared to other competitor vendors like Ruckus and HP Aruba. The product pricing should be competitive compared to other vendors, as many products are coming up with good features like Cambium, Edge, and Core. The controller pricing is high compared to other vendors like Ruckus. Pricing should be lowered to target the SMB market, where many other vendors have dominance.

The performance was poor in high-density areas, which is why we changed to Ruckus Wireless. Ruckus outperforms Cisco by a ratio of nearly four to one. The administration is difficult.

The new GUI interface and the newer version OS are a little bit more complex than the older version, however, it just might take some getting used to. There's room for improvement when it comes to setting up 802.1 authentications, their user authentication with the AAA. It's too difficult and not intuitive. The solution is extremely expensive.

It would be great if it is compatible with other products.

For the customer, it would be ideal if the solution had more global reach. It's a bit complicated to explain, however. The documentation can be a bit confusing. It would be better if it was easier to follow. We're hoping that the solution will work well with 5G. In Latin America, Cisco is very expensive in comparison to other technologies.

The price should be reduced. It should be cheaper.

Overall, it's a pretty good solution; however, it's end-of-life, it will be end-of-support in the next two years. The APs are also end-of-life. I was considering upgrading this year, however, we're planning to move to a new office and I don't want to buy new equipment just to install it in our current office, and then have to dismantle everything and move it to the new office. We just want to buy something that is useful for us. The model that we have is about eight or ten years old; I'm sure the marketplace has changed a lot since then. It's good but outdated, there are other features that could be better. The latest models, of course, have better WiFi capabilities. Our access points support 2.4 and 5 GHz. We're looking for the new AX or AC models for WiFi. I believe there is more speed with those kinds of connections.

Code stability is something that needs to be improved.

There needs to be an access point that is compact and more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses. We need an access point that can be easily managed in a big industry. As it is now, in a large organization, we would require perhaps 20 or 30 access points. Instead of this, if we had a high-range access point that is also cost-effective then it would work well.

It requires a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. Its portal is complex. Cisco solutions are complex in general.

The most difficult part of the solution is us juggling everything. There are eight access points that we have to deal with. They have a tendency to age out. After five years, they go off sale. Then, five years after that, that they're out of support. Usually, when you get a new access point, we have to get to a certain version to get everything to work. However, on top of that, the ones we had 10 years ago are no longer functioning. They make it a complicated battle to try to keep your equipment at proper revisions, all at the time. They kind of force you to upgrade now. Apple is definitely causing a lot of issues by turning on more security features on its equipment. It is causing more problems on the business side. One is what they call a randomized Mac address that Apple has put out. As far as I know, Cisco doesn't have a fix for that. In other words, it's there to protect the end-user when they're on a guest network or they use randomized Mac addresses. We were trying to implement an employee group that would track the individual via the Mac. Now that it's rotating, we don't have a way to configure that. I need to figure out how to handle security features that product lines have that offer a non-standard type of security feature that is being turned on constantly by different vendors. iPad also gives us isses. They have it set up so that you don't see the Mac address and the wireless at all. You can't even track your device anymore. I just discovered that last week.

I would like to see an improvement in the controllers of the solution. I would ideally like to have software defined WiFi as an additional feature, everything connected with LVMs, so basically to define networking; ADPs which would define the perimeter and a combination of PSDN and WAN, etc. I would also like to see the use of the PE market and functions. Authentication and authorization processes for guest users would also be a good additional feature.

We are looking for more interaction with end-users and need to use the engagement feature that is provided in the new series. We want interaction between the end-users and the software that we are deploying. Therefore, an integration that would use a user's mobile devices through some sort of engagement API would be a good enhancement. We don't actually use the features to their full potential yet. We're always exploring the features to see what we can add. It would be great if, even if the solution is degraded, security-wise, if it could be integrated without extra overhead for the systems or wireless administrators.

The coverage should be better. There should be an option for a wireless bridge that can be used to join two access points. Technical support takes too long and is something that should be improved. It would be helpful if Cisco Wireless supported the Internet of Things (IoT).

One thing which we really don't like about Cisco is that it is very expensive. If we compare it to other brands like Ruckus or Aruba, it seems to be almost double in price. So that is a major concern. Recently, I have been looking for something comparable to Cisco which is a lower price. Cost is a major area because if you look at the technical features with other solutions, they seem to be the same in every feature, with no big differences. For example, if you support a 1.5k ACL with two parallel lines, others are supporting 2,000. It's not a major difference, but it is there. I think you can show that it as at par with the competitors. I would say that the product is best-in-class. The only thing is the price because whether you're a government institution or a private organization, everyone looks for the best price. If we just compare to the competitors on the financial side and we have to pay twice, then it's very difficult for us to go for something even if we know it is very good. So the price should be much less. Another improvement Cisco Wireless could make is if they provided a calculation document or study on requirements for wall thickness, signal range, switch location, etc. Additionally, I think it is already very advanced and potentially supports 5G. That is perfectly fine, but it would be good if they could increase their signal strength, because sometimes we face difficulty getting signals, even from a wifi access point in the next room. This goes hand-in-hand with the document I mentioned calculating the range area of the product, etc. There are international standards and/or limitations on that.

I would like to see less dependency on other products such as ISE and Prime for certain implementations.

I think the technology is already at a level where it's good enough. In some ways, it's better than wired. But there is always a backlash when it comes to lack of accessibility. It's not the solution itself, as much as how it's deployed. The product could be improved with interference reduction. Because wireless frequency interferes with microwave or Bluetooth technologies, which are hindrances to a genuine wireless connection. A lot of users still use legacy wireless adapters and they do not experience the speed that they could get using the latest technologies. The number of devices on the market makes wireless communications complex. If the problem of interference could be reduced it would further improve utility and ease of system design.

The cost model is expensive. The new licensing has no added value and seems to be Cisco's effort to take advantage of customers.

Signal strength and range.

At this time, Cisco solutions integrate with other Cisco products. This is necessary in order for them to work completely. I would like to see better and easier integration with third party products.

Significantly reduce the licensing fees.

Improvements can be made in the wireless connectivity. Particularly, the wireless, rods and, microchips and other access point components. I think that Cisco can improve its product line. Additionally, improvements can be made to the telemetry. The licensing gets in the way here. It makes it impossible to record the different flows across the wireless network.

One of our customers complained about the ripple, that some of the data was incorrect. We opened a ticket and brought it to their attention that maybe some of the data was not correct. As of now, it has been two months since we opened the ticket and the issue still hasn't been resolved.

The configuration interface could be easier. They should make roaming easier and should fix it so that when you cross a building you can keep the signal.

When you integrate a network access control with authentication with an ISE engine it's really complicated to put in place. Even if you're only using Cisco products you have a new algorithm and you have old material. For us, it's complicated because we have to maintain old parts or devices. We purchase new devices and we maintain several SSID which is not really recommended by Cisco. They prefer to have one and to dispatch based on the condition.

A mobile app would be great to see if the system is up, and some minor tools, but not to add or remove rules. Improvement here would be appreciated.

Price is a concern. Although Cisco has an excellent solution, being competitive in the market is important.

Probably more in terms of how much power it's using. Right now it just seems like it doesn't have enough power. Maybe that is all indicated, but says exactly how much power it's using. When it comes to wireless controllers you have issues where you want to take an access point computer to a wireless controller, you have to configure the iOS for it. That's just cumbersome and it takes time. It just is not as convenient so not having to do that would be nice. I think it's a little more complicated than that to convert the iOS file when you're doing the wireless controller where you're going to have them converted.

The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time.

Sometimes I've seen some issues come up with the interference. That's an issue users face at times. It becomes very complex when you have a lot of wireless interference in the area, or in your office. It's because of the environment of Cisco. Maybe, in the future, they can work on this area, and fix this issue.

There are a couple of shortcomings in Cisco Wireless right now. I don't see a policy model for the wireless technology solution. If Cisco could bring the wireless architecture around with the controls, it would lead to being able to fine-tune the configuration a little better.

There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult.

The GUI could be made more user-friendly. There should also be a dashboard where it can showcase how many end-users are connected to a particular access point.

There are certain features which I would want which are not there. There is always a wish list, that my WiFi should give me one, two, three, four, five. Certain things come, certain things don't, and certain things come at a cost. It fulfills about 75-80 percent of what I'm looking for. Things on my wish list are available at an additional cost but I can live without those thing, so I'm fine with it.

There is room for improvement regarding HA issues and Radius integration.

The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based.

Many wireless controllers' firmware have bugs in their new releases, which are not stable, especially in an environment with many wireless AP (WAP) types.

The model we are using (Meraki MR16) has already been discontinued, for a better product line, so I believe the improvements needed have already been addressed.

Most definitely the cost.

Everything is online NWEA TestTaker, Google classroom and courses. This is why we need to have better WiFi coverage.