Cisco Aironet 4800 Access Points (discontinued) vs. Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers

Cisco Aironet 4800 Access Points are well suited for a larger office or organization that has multiple buildings that require a larger-scale wireless network. The controller makes it easy to discover and deploy radios in a timely manner. The Cisco Aironet 4800 Access Points are probably not well suited for smaller offices where one radio will suffice.

Incentivized

for well suited, with all these big organizations you can have regional or distributed controller base. I think this is better and then you can consolidate things. All this whole infrastructure to the single locations. Not be a good fit? If you have a small organizations then yeah, maybe some other traditional physical controller.

Incentivized

• Ease of setup
• Area of coverage
• Device life

Incentivized

• I guess it's very good at managing large scale deployments because I can change configuration on basically all of our devices at once if I want to. It gives us a quick and easy overview of all of the clients, all of the healthy status of our devices.
• It's very good at troubleshooting because it pulls logs from a hardware level, whereas otherwise we'd have to log into each device ourselves and get those logs. It does that automatically.

Incentivized

• If possible, please add a column for WAP Name and WAP Model within the 2.4/5/6 GHz radio sections, as we have different models of WAPs in the fleet, and it would be easier to identify WAPs within a building.
• We conduct digital exams for our students. If there is a way to identify clients and block traffic for applications like ChatGPT, it would be greatly appreciated. Currently, there is no filter for ChatGPT or generative AI.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

It's not simple, but this is the result of being very deeply configurable

Incentivized

High availability options are very good. You have multiple options so you can select whichever suits you well. Also you can mix it up if you have more controllers so your downtime risk decreases sharply. Users will not feel any connection issues thanks to powerful and flexible high availability options that Cisco provides.

Incentivized

I give this rating because right out of the box we were able to configure multiple radios in the console and deploy them to our environment in a very short amount of time. The only issues we had was there was a bad radio, which was replaced quickly and easily.

Incentivized

While it works well in general, there are some bugs in both the GUI and functionality. It has caused spikes of downtime in our network. The HA also is quite cumbersome and specific to set up, while not having the most reliable working around.

Incentivized

When it's a config issue, TAC is usually useful. If it's some bug and BU needs to be involved, it might take forever.

Incentivized

You need to understand wifi basics

Incentivized

We are not using any other Cisco products at this time.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

I gave the rating I did because, in my opinion, this product scales very well. We are able to add as many radios as we need to to expand our network to more sites, as we need them. So far, I have not had any issues when installing new radios.

Incentivized

There are different vesrions for different requirements, there's HA as well.

Incentivized

• I think that it has had a positive impact, especially with the dashboard being a university. The 9800 dashboard gives us one spot where we can go to see how many clients are on each of our SSIDs or perhaps client utilization. We've dashboard may be saying, Hey, you have one building that has 90 people connected to one access point. So that gives us the information we need to go in and expand that coverage or add in some high density to address those issues.

Incentivized