Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Currently supported by Cisco, but no longer sold, Cisco recommends migration to the Cisco Catalyst 9100 Family of Access Points, which offer greater performance and flexibility.
N/A
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
The Cisco Catalyst 9800-80 is a modular wireless controller with optional 100 Gigabit Ethernet (G) modular uplinks boasting seamless software updates for large enterprises and campuses, and security with ETA and SD-Access.
N/A
Pricing
Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Considered Both Products
Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
No answer on this topic
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers is more modern, looks better, supports newer access points. Using different tags - site tags, policy tags, etc. is a nice way to configure different access point groups or locations. Also Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless …
Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Likelihood to Recommend
Discontinued Products
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.
I think any size organization can benefit from them. The smaller "L" models work well for a smaller organization and of course, the same answer for the larger platforms. The failover/redundancy options are quite nice and the unified setup and UI is always nice for consistency.
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.
I think the updates are great. ISSU upgrading code is fantastic. I think the speed with which CAPWAP converges or reconverges, I think the redundancy mechanisms for roaming APs to other controllers is very good. I think overall, getting away from more of a monolithic processor where subprocesses handle what they call the WNCD tasks, I think fundamentally is an improvement in performance.
The radioactive tracing, all of the troubleshooting and all of the logging and all of the importing and exporting features for logging and analytics within the controller itself is really, really good compared to the predecessor AireOS.
The only downside I would say is the GUI performance is a little bit slow, even with a newer 9800, performance still lags a bit even compared to the previous generations. So I would like to see that improved. But aside from that, that's really the only issue that we have with it.
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
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
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.
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.
Performance is great until you hit load towards the higher end of its rated load. So if you have a super highly congested wifi area, you will want to either deploy a higher end unit or split the traffic to a few of these guys to not see bandwidth issues that you may see otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
Ubiquiti WLAN is very much a consumer platform. It is not production ready, it is buggy, it has issues. It is cheaper than Cisco, but you get what you pay for. Aruba doesn't integrate nicely with our existing largely Cisco based networks, so when time came to replace AireOS, the Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers came out on top.
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.
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.
Positive impacts, yeah, is good to have a central location to control all these profiles for different countries and locations. And the drawback, like I said to you really because of the too many integrations that have a dependency on the software version. For example, Cisco ONE for Access have certain software that can run through and then this scatter center need to make sure it's working with the others APS version that is currently working. And we also, the Cisco Catalyst Center also have some kind another version of software that you need to support this controller. So it's like two tier three tiers of the software version that we need to match. Then only it can work.
