Cisco Aironet 2800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Score 7.3 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 2800 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 2800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Aironet 2800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Likelihood to Recommend
Discontinued Products
Cisco Aironet 2800 Series Access Points is very well suited for large enterprises and high-density environments. It is not well suited for high ceiling buildings like warehouses and storage places because of low antenna gain. In our main office, it is working very well. For around thirty or so wireless devices this access point works very well and after forty or so wireless devices it starts to suffer.
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.
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.
GPS Tracker - I can't understand why only the Cisco 1570 has this option as well as larger Cisco 3800 APs. Why can't this be in all APs so they can be easily mapped in Google for positioning and later plotted for the coverage zone.
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.
Because until now I haven't had any issues or cases where I needed to create a ticket with Tac from Cisco related to their performance or availability. They have a small size that permits or allows you to install it in each place that you need to mount it, their design is small and appropriate for every kind of office.
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
Lately we had less issues. Most probably because we reduced the number of Wireless LAN controllers. So less trouble for upgrades as well. We don't have any access point in stand alone mode. It's something I don't suggest, unless it's just for a small office and not for a larger company with different sites.
This access point does not usually randomly shut off. It can't happen but it's generally due to a power over ethernet failures which would could be considered a user error.
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 wise [Cisco Aironet 2800 Series Access Points] are among of the best pieces of technology we have on premise. I don't say that lightly, we have a lot of cool tech. But if you consider how many users are connecting to these day in and day out without a single blip when they're downloading large files, roaming to new AP's or needing a boosted signal at a far end of the range then these are unmatched.
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.
Make sure to get a professional wireless assessment before purchasing AP's. That way you will only purchase what you need and know where the wiring infrastructure will need to be to streamline the installation and tuning process.
D-Link Wireless network solution was being used previously in [a] few areas of our plant and it was working well with [a] low number of users but as the company grew, and user base started to grow we started seeing hanging, disconnection, and very low-performance issues in our wireless network. We replaced the entire network with Cisco Aironet Access Points and since then the issues have been resolved and [the] wireless network is working with great performance.
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.
When it comes to deploying the Cisco Aironet 2800 Series Access Points in locations around the school district it has become easier as you get used to putting 4 screws in the mounting plate to the bracket and then slide the access point onto the bracket.
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.
