Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Score 10.0 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 3800 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 3800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Chose Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Not much yet. In my experience from becoming a network engineer four-ish years ago to now, like I said, I used that 5520, which was a Cisco product. These 9800 are a lot smaller and tinier and they seem to do a lot more that the other ones couldn't do. It's a good product.
Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Likelihood to Recommend
Discontinued Products
As any Cisco Aironet Access Points, the 3800 model is more for power users than beginners. It is for sure very more complex to maintain and trouble shoot than solutions like Cisco Meraki APs.
By the way, there are a lot of settings that can be customized and it is really interesting for difficult environments like industrial factories.
The 3800 model is also robust so it should stay durable and reliable.
But if you want to use the mesh mode or make a wireless bridge, this model is not appropriate as it is not supported for now.
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.
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.
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
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.
The Cisco 3802 product performance is excellent. Not only for the speed and range of the wireless it provides, but also for the fact that - when deployed in a large scale environment - the performance does not fail. It provides the same network connectivity for users ranging from 1 to 30-plus concurrent connections.
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.
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.
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.
Contrary to a solution like the Cisco Meraki access points, the Aironet access points like the 3800 are linked to the Controler. And depending on the version of the controller, it will support only some models of access points.
For big sites, it may be difficult to upgrade the controler to support new ap models like 3800 because we still have old access points.
And it is also the same between new access points and old client devices so it is always a bit tricky.
After that, if the access point model is supported by the controller, it is really simple to install a new one
Users are able to carry on with their work while moving, changing seats, rooms or having an ad-hoc Skype meeting on the way to lunch. It is always hard to justify the value of connectivity but be assured, when it is not working the business impact is immediate.
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.
