Cisco Catalyst 8000V SD-WAN & Router - PAYG - DNA Advantage

I am using Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN mainly for enterprise customers.

The most valuable feature I find in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is application aware routing.

I am not aware of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN.

I assess the operational efficiency of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN in the IT environment as overall good, and it is a competitor that we are able to propose to our customers.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN optimizes the experience in both hybrid and distributed enterprise setups, and we are positioned well to promote Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN.

I see some room for improvement for Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN with G2 routers, as we are expecting more customers.

To bring Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN closer to ten, I would like to see improvement in the GUI, Graphical User Interface, and for it to be more user-friendly.

I find it complex to use and complex to learn how to use it.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for the last one year.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is used in our company for around five to ten years, and I also recommend the product to my customers.

Based on the rating scale from one to ten, I would assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN as eight.

I have not experienced much downtime, crashes, or performance issues, and it is good as of now.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is currently steady in scaling with the growing needs of our organization, and we can expect in one or two years that we will have more bandwidth.

Currently, around six customers in my customers' company are using Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN.

They are mostly enterprise companies.

I would rate their technical support a seven.

I see there is room for improvement when it comes to response time, which should be improved, as well as first level support quality.

With respect to support, we expect some improvement regarding stability and reliability.

Before Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, I have hands-on experience in Cisco Meraki.

Regarding Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN's price, I find it reasonable, based on commercial pricing and CDCS support, although we see that there is some lack in TACACS and other support.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is one of the competitors on the market at the moment.

I rate Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN around eight overall.

There are no specific challenges I face with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN addresses.

The features I find most valuable in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN are the configuration of rules where we don't need to configure router rules. We can create a group and configure all of them. On the other hand, there is the load balancer. I have a load balancer with two lines, with two lines in each branch of my organization. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN makes a load balance between the two lines on a session here and a session there.

I don't think of something regarding weaknesses because I used to legacy routing. I think it is complete. Nothing is complete, but I think it is complete for me or for my daily work.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is that we have other tools for monitoring traffic and net flow. But I can see the users who are consuming the bandwidth, and I can see from the LAN to the server, not the user, for example an IP address. For example, 10.10.10.10 communicates or consumes bandwidth to 10.10.10.20, but it doesn't appear with the user name, such as Ali, Zain, or Mark.

I see room for improvement when it comes to visibility as there should be a direction they should go in the future to complete the monitoring of the user at the branch, which user at the branch consumes this bandwidth. This would make routing or configuration for routers easier.

Regarding additional features, I have not thought of any at this time.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for one year.

I have no problem with the technical support provided by Cisco.

I would rate their technical support at nine because for any problem, I receive an answer and the issue gets resolved. Nothing is a perfect ten, but nine is appropriate. I would rate it nine and a half.

I know the concept and how Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN works. I understand what I should do for configuration, such as the vManage, vSmart, vBond, and what it needs for HA.

It was not easy to implement it in my system as we did not do the implementation alone, but I could see how the vendors do it. I asked them about their procedures and requested a sub-plan and pre-requirements, but we did not do the implementation alone. However, for operation, we are working on operations without support.

I was involved in the implementation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, but not enough to implement it alone. However, I know how to.

The pricing for Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is something I don't know as the tender is not in my department or at my level, but I know it is very expensive.

I did consider other products before choosing Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, and they are different in configuration and how they work. Forti doesn't have a centralized configuration in the way that Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN does.

I don't remember which version I am currently using.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN ten out of ten overall.

In Egypt, regarding Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN popularity, fintech or big companies have many branches, such as fintech or telecom companies. Its popularity is high, and all of them want to have or already have Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. However, other sectors know that Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN solution is very expensive and is not useful for them if they don't have many branches.

The primary use case is for network management and routers we have for WAN connectivity.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is easy to use for the purpose of SNMP and Spanning Tree. Getting the data from the long switch is sufficient to obtain proper information. It is easy to move around with, and it functions in the same manner as other Cisco devices. No major changes have occurred, so it is easier to handle.

I cannot speak to programming-side improvements since that is not my area of expertise.

On a base level, improvements could include a better interface, more AI capabilities, better pricing, and better support from a user aspect. Adding AI would be beneficial.

I have been working on Catalyst switches for more than seven to eight years. The latest models include the 92 series and 9600, and in the controller, we have the 9800.

Stability is exceptional. The switch can operate for more than twenty years, even after loss of license. I would rate it a nine out of ten. The hardware is very good and cannot be compared with other products from Aruba or HP. Cisco hardware is very perfect, similar to Juniper hardware, and you cannot compare it with other devices.

We have three hundred fifty on-site devices, and almost five hundred to six hundred total.

I would rate customer service a seven. The response time from Cisco TAC is very bad. We typically handle issues ourselves, as we do the majority of our troubleshooting independently.

Documentation is available, but we need to read more of it. For P1 tickets, they do not respond very quickly, which is an issue. The response time is not comparable to Aruba.

The initial setup is easy.

The only concern is the matter of pricing. There is no comparison between Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN and other solutions. Everything else is fine.

I recommend Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN because it is easy to use. More information is available on the internet, and the community is very large, which is the primary reason for the recommendation. The main drawback preventing some from using it is the pricing. My overall rating for this product is eight out of ten.

We are a system integrator and a Cisco Select Partner, deploying all the Cisco portfolios like SD-WAN, switching, firewall, access point, and then Secure Access, our cybersecurity product. We have been a partner at Cisco for the last 8.5 years, dealing with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN.

The features I find most valuable in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN are based on our customer requirements, as the SD-WAN solution now has two solutions: Viptela-based SD-WAN and then Meraki-based SD-WAN. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN has detailed features, and Meraki is a better solution, but compared to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, some features are not as detailed.

From the visibility perspective, I find that we are able to monitor and manage the entire branch and user-level activities, providing better visibility. We can integrate with cloud-based solutions, such as Secure Access, and get all the information regarding who is accessing from branch to headquarters, source to destination, the servers, and all related data. We can monitor and manage who is accessing and what traffic is flowing, covering all the necessary aspects.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN can be improved in minimal ways, because they have updated it now, and the updated version is really good. The only concern is the cost; compared to others, the cost is higher, but the features are the same as a superior product, so we are expecting that cost. Some customers feel the cost is high, as not all users utilize all the features. They want some limited functionality, and we have two or three models of licenses only, where they need to buy either one license version or another. They are not using all the features, so they end up paying for everything.

The pricing is the only concern regarding Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN; otherwise, all aspects are good.

8.5 years

I see the competition to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN mainly as the Palo Alto product, specifically the IRON product, which is the SD-WAN device similar to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. It features a centralized dashboard, management, large-scope deployment, and visibility, making them a competitor. Other products are available, but they are not at that much of a competitive level; Silver Peak is one example.

Cisco does optimize the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup with the previous solution being Viptela Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, which has now changed to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. We can now integrate Secure Access with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN devices, allowing us to do all the policy optimization and distributed distribution functions.

I think the operational efficiency of Cisco in my IT environment is a good aspect compared to Palo Alto, which is another competitor in enterprise-level solutions. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN has some more features, enabling us to integrate with multiple platforms to monitor, manage, and adapt a single point of management. I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

I am using Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN in my company and I recommend it to my customers as well.

The most valuable features of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN include their support, which is really good compared to other vendors because we do deal with other vendors, and I have seen FortiGate. I don't think they will ever be able to match up to what Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN offerings are, that is for sure.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup, and it is good in enterprise setups as well. We have deployed it for our manufacturing customers and it is pretty stable.

In terms of troubleshooting capabilities, end-to-end visibility affects my organization's ability to detect issues aggressively with their products, especially the software-defined networking stack for the LAN and WAN, where we have seen issues being detected much more aggressively, allowing us to resolve issues faster. Their AI features are really decent, so overall, it is a good solution.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is good, but from a cost perspective, they need to think through and see how they can materialize and reduce costs, especially the hardware.

Overall, I would rate Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN good, although they should start innovating more towards the AI landscape where we are seeing very high traction. At the SD-WAN level, they are fine, but they need to catch up, especially HPE post-acquisition of Juniper. When comparing Meraki versus Mist, Mist has better features, so those are some areas they need to catch up.

To make Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN closer to a 10, I think cost is the first primary factor. The support and fundamental help assistance, especially during onboarding, could be much easier to enable small businesses to take it up.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for three years.

The product is pretty stable.

In terms of scalability, I would put Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN around eight on a scale of one to ten, as it scales well with the growing needs of my organization. We have used it in multiple diversified topologies and it has remained stable, being tested through time.

From a scalability point of view, I don't see any concerns because we take into consideration their product-wise limitations when we are buying specific modules or things, so I think we are good over there.

I would rate their technical support a ten.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN depends on the channel partner who is providing the support, and their channel partners are pretty stable and quite good.

The initial setup for Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is very easy and pretty straightforward because their documentation is pretty detailed, so we haven't seen or run into issues.

I see HPE as good competition to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN.

HPE is cheaper.

To make Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN closer to a 10, I think cost is the first primary factor. The support and fundamental help assistance, especially during onboarding, could be much easier to enable small businesses to take it up.

Go ahead with your questions about Cisco products.

Everything remains as is with these products. No changes.

I purchased my Cisco products directly from Cisco.

I would rate this review a 7 overall.