Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points vs. Cisco Aironet and Catalyst Access Points

Dead simple to setup, deploy, upgrade and manage. If a colleague was asking for a solid AP that just runs and runs without tiring out and they dont want to break the bank with the higher end units, this is a great place to look. I would say that you're going to have to deal with Cisco licensing support at some point during setup, but thats par for the course.

Incentivized

Cisco [Aironet Access Points] are well suited in offices where they can be managed by a wireless LAN controller (WLC). Using them in this way allows the APs to be well managed and security policies can easily be enforced down to users connecting to these APs for wireless access. Scenarios, where Cisco [Aironet Access Points] are less appropriate, are in small-office-home-office (SOHO) situations because of price and licensing costs to use a WLC to manage them. Thus, using them, in this case, would be that the APs would have to be in Autonomous mode, and the technical know-how in converting a lightweight AP to an Autonomous one is not straightforward.

Incentivized

• Until 2018, our Aironets were 1560 series, and each was managed separately. We had about 9 devices, 3-4 per floor, strategically placed on each floor to get a good coverage map over a three-floor environment. Their coverage was greater than expected. With the latest 1852 models we have, they are managed by a controller, and frankly, the coverage is a smaller area, requiring more units. We have worked with support for months and this is the final outcome of all the setting changes - we simply need more devices to cover the same area.
• None of the models I have used have needed reboots. We usually only reboot the devices annually, and they don't have issues requiring restarts.
• With the 1560 series, the connection strength was extremely consistent. With the new 1852 model, which is managed by one of the WAPs as a controller, it is supposed to use smart technology to load balance (optional) and determine which of the WAPs is appropriate to connect the requesting device to - great idea - but it does NOT work well.

Incentivized

• They are rock solid in terms of reliability (we rarely have to replace them).
• They are easily managed from the controller. It's easy to push new settings out, like RF profiles, etc...
• They are fairly easy to install using the included mounting brackets.
• They seem to be compatible with pretty much everything, although occasionally we will have roaming issues with Apple devices.

Incentivized

• On the Mobility Express models, it’s hard to configure all from the GUI, and sometimes the GUI is buggy
• In Mobility Express, the (virtual) controller is not able to push the right image to the APs. This sometimes results in not joining the APs
• Some minor issues with firmware

Incentivized

• Powering options have been problematic in a few deployment scenarios. Newer APs have very robust power needs that are difficult to provide.
• Cisco 3800 series APs have failed more frequently than previous models.

Incentivized

If Cisco keeps innovating the feature sets on the next 1800 models, I would definitely try it out to improve the experience of my users and to keep them on the latest technologies

Incentivized

Pretty straightforward guide, which was built since OEAP600 AP's and never improved, this is a good thing for user to tackle when they configure the personal SSID, but does not reflect how it should be in 2020, where everything is mobile compatible and app ready. Cisco are going to have an app for this, but it comes with greater cost.

Incentivized

In general, this AP has great performance for having MIMO 4X4 with 4 antennas for receiving and sending signals to users. AP 1850 has good construction and integrates the CleanAir feature that works to change the frequency channel when it senses external interference.

Incentivized

If you are able to identify the problem initially, you would be able to explain it to the TAC. In order for the TAC to understand it, the TAC engineer must be competent enough to understand it, and have the devices already in lab to test with. Each bug I encountered the TAC was able to help. And I was able to file at least 3 bugs on the 1815T and M.

Incentivized

Cisco Aironet has it place in the modern workplace and is great for single location deployments creating a good robust affordable solution. Installing them in a plant that has exposure to environmental elements they have stood the test of time, well so far. If you are looking for multi-location, multi-national or international deployments with a single plane of glass the Cisco Meraki MR's are a better choice, enhancing the time to deploy and ease of management.

Incentivized

The usage scenario was different. I don't see this as a benefit versus harm comparison, necessarily. What happened was that, at a certain point, the implementation of the cisco solution was the winner of our public bidding process and with that, we implemented it and have used it ever since.

Incentivized

It can easily support growth and be deployed in multiple locations. The access point has an integrated controller that can manage up to a certain amount of equipment in different locations. Setup is instantaneous and takes approximately 10 minutes to configure itself.

Incentivized

• We can be in Mobility Express mode where the AP provides the controller functionality to support a small to medium deployment without requiring a dedicated controller.
• Access Points are centrally managed via a WLC reducing the management overhead for deployment, configuration, and upgrade.

• In fact, Cisco products in Brazil have a high cost due to a series of taxes.
• But it is a long-term investment and guaranteed immediate return since you will have to have problems with the service offered (Wi-Fi).

Incentivized