Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller vs. Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers

I recommend using Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller as an economical solution for assurance of best wireless connectivity across departments and cloud resources. It can resolve most of the networking and cloud connectivity-related issues. It can also eliminate the issues related to bandwidth. It can provide uninterrupted connectivity to cloud resources and databases at high speed with security.

Incentivized

Well suited for most of our customer base because it is a versatile, scalable, large multi-campus organizations. Not so: Brandish deployments where there's a much more simplified feature set needed. So where we can basically rely on Meraki as a cloud base with easier to deploy.

Incentivized

• The GUI on the Cisco 8540 WLC is much better designed than other Cisco products. Its easy to navigate between the different settings to find what is needed.
• The AP groups allows touching multiple APs at one time.
• It also allows us to create standard SSIDs that can be used at all sites that connect back to it, this saves a lot of time instead of hitting each site with a local controller.

Incentivized

• Particularly well I would say especially compared to the previous generation of controllers, it gives a lot of additional troubleshooting logging tools for us to determine problems that didn't exist in prior devices. Where we used to have to send someone out, boots on the ground and physically show up at a location, there's a lot of tools now that we can use to remotely diagnose those problems.

Incentivized

• Code quality is a bit hit and miss. This will be great for a while, then things will be bad for a while, then we'll do it again. The UI of the controller works, but could do with a refresh, and I would like to see some improvement on layout and organization.
• The constant code/firmware upgrades and the QA of new code could be better.
• Maybe the compatibility with old Cisco Access Points could be improved, but it's normal in all kinds of deployments.

Incentivized

• You should have one single license that can cover all. Otherwise you need to have a very, very advanced license that only can see full visibility for this. And most of the times you need to integrate it with others. We do have the catalyst center to manage this controllers and it requires a certain license to run in so that we can see troubleshooting is easy for the end users. We can see all the end to ends. It should have maybe one single license that you can apply for everything. So instead of to have separate product at different license, but we we're integrating together.

Incentivized

Despite common software and hardware issues this is still the best product on the market for large scale enterprise deployments. Cisco has worked with us extensively to reduce the amount of bugs in every iteration however new bugs are introduced or new incompatibilities always arise with major releases. Thus, while I'm hesitant to recommend the product it's still much better than all the other competitors such as Aruba and Juniper in the WIFi space. There is also extensive integration with DNAC/Catalyst Center and ISE in an SDA deployment. Recently there has been a number of critical issues with the controller software and Cisco has proved themselves to be incapable of timely troubleshooting and diagnosis. This has reduced our confidence in the product and it's current and future stability and maintainability. At it's current state the product is taking up too much of our engineering resources to maintain despite also paying for premium support from Cisco. As such I have reduced by rating as we are likely to look at alternative vendors for our long-term wireless management solution

Incentivized

Very feature rich, easy enough for beginners to understand layout and initial setup. Need a good training (online, Cisco Leaning Network, etc.) to fully understand all features and product capabilities. Strict power requirements for APs are only major drawback for our specific implementation.

Incentivized

It's not simple, but this is the result of being very deeply configurable

Incentivized

Due to our HA set up we have always managed to access our wireless networks without problems, when issues occur. When we have lost access to the GUI, due to internal network problems, console access is always welcomed and brings with it the normal Cisco CLI syntax. From previous versions of CLI, it is now a lot simpler and reflects other Cisco products, making it easier to troubleshoot and navigate when necessary.

Incentivized

Monitoring is very good Seamless integration with Cisco ISE RRM configuration very easy. It has REST API support IOS-XE is very powerful operation system. Multicasting and mDNS features are really good and very easy to configure. It supports Pyats and Genie so getting constructed data from python script calls very helpful.

Incentivized

It is a better product. The evolution is positive.

Incentivized

the overall support on the 9800 Wireless lan controller is good. Wireless issues are sometimes hard to troubleshoot since it's the RF that make it complex and the diversity in clients and requirements. The engineers do a good job in understanding the scope and issue, altough not all issues can be solved

Incentivized

You need to understand wifi basics

Incentivized

Cisco products offer an unrivaled experience that outperforms the majority of other alternatives. This is a long-term investment that will provide a great return on investment. The Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller, on the other hand, is more powerful and has more features for managing each device and the wireless network.

Incentivized

We are moving into a more unified and centralized design, and the benefits offered by the 9800 compared to the above listed 5520 series and 8500 series of wireless controller is much preferred. The staggered upgrade option is again another feature much improved moving to the new model and management through DNAC

Incentivized

There are different vesrions for different requirements, there's HA as well.

Incentivized

• Network engineers find it easier to [manage] high-stress levels since they're more reliable and robust.
• Their initial cost is very high compared to other router providers, such as Juniper.
• Their hardware dependability can be a big drawback if you run on a budget.

Incentivized

• It is a fair replacement for the 8540. It is mostly capable of being a one-to-one replacement, and so I would put it as a very net positive product. I don't think that there were a lot of pains in migrating from one platform to the other if again, you knew what you're doing in your design and able to make all that work predictably. And so very positive. I think overall it's been a very good solution of the one option out there. It was a very good solution.

Incentivized