Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Points (discontinued) vs. Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller

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.

Incentivized

Overall I could see myself recommending these to others if they have the right set of circumstances at their place of business. Those would be like ours, if they had a location that couldnt be served by a WLC. Once setup they are easy to manage and self healing as in they wont go down when one is offline.

Incentivized

• Cisco APs are managed very easily from a Cisco WLC controller.
• Cisco APs provide lots of enterprise-grade options such as rogue detection and automatic power configuration.
• Cisco APs have many different mounting options, which makes them very versatile in a healthcare environment.

Incentivized

• Offers enterprise-class security that keeps the network protected
• Cost-effective connectivity
• Deploying WiFi 6 network without complexity or added expense
• Controlling access points and clients

Incentivized

• Outdoor capabilities. We have actually blown up a few outdoor units. Water got inside the outdoor units and had visible rust
• Costs compared to other AP’s in the market. Ruckus and EnGenius work out a bit cheaper
• Mounting options are limited

• Some bugs in the interface.
• Issues with licensing and Cisco DNA integration.
• Frequent software patches needed,

Incentivized

We are all happy with Aironet and Prime.

Incentivized

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.

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

Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller provides the ability to manage and deploy the wireless network from a web UI or mobile application, and without the expense or complexity of a wireless controller appliance.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Makes having remote sites less problematic when it comes to managing AP's
• Saved money on managed AP's as they're found cheaper
• Takes more time to manage additional controllers versus a WLC

Incentivized