We chose Cisco Catalyst Switches because it works with all the mentioned technology and if you have an issue you can call one company and troubleshoot it end to end.
The support that we receive from other vendor is bad compared to Cisco, its the main reason why we stick to Cisco as the downtime for business is more expensive than a cheaper product.
In our case these model of Catalysts work well within our already established Meraki infrastructure, meshing with our Meraki Dashboard! Prior to the acquisition of our Catalyst, we heard many good reviews from our vendor we work with as well as our own online research seeing …
After evaluating both vendor, we chose Cisco Catalyst Switches becuase of, 1-We need the Power stacking features and Aruba doest not support Power stacking. 2-MACSEC to protect senstive data
Pretty much, we use Cisco switches, so we haven't really tested out anybody else. We do have some other routers from Juniper and stuff like that. The Juniper routers work pretty well. We do prefer the Cisco firewalls over the Juniper firewalls at this point.
We certainly love the configuration consistency between the platforms now as IOS XE becomes a consistent backbone. The Cisco Catalyst Switches are like everything else and become a natural extension configuration and support wise of everything else. I personally do not have …
Our organization chose Cisco Catalyst Switches because, in our opinion, Cisco Catalyst Switches are much easier to use than NEXUS and Meraki switches. In my experience, The NEXUS OS is confusing, and the Meraki is hard to troubleshoot.
They are pretty much great because when it comes down to configuration in the IOS, it's much simpler in Cisco than these other ones. You got to do too much configuration. You do the same thing you can do with two commands, for example on the Cisco IOS. So yeah, I recommend more …
Cisco Catalyst Switches have been more reliable than the Ruckus switches I have worked with in the past. The stacking is much more reliable. Issues have been able to be resolved much quicker. Additionally, support being provided has been out of this world. Overall I would rate …
I think the most suited ones will be of course, for example, a supermarket where you have more than 50 plus devices because there are like 48 ports in a switch. We can just use a lot of devices and connect them to it. A less use case will be, I think it depends at the end of the day how your topology looks like. If you have a very few devices, you shouldn't be going for these catalyst switches because they are of course much bigger, more processing power and all those things. If you have, again, it comes to topology. If you have the number of users who are using these switches is less than 15, it's less than 15, then you can just go for any other option and not use them.
One of the things that it does well, it's not something major, but there's a light tracking feature that the 9300 comes with that you can turn on the light and that has become critical in a data center environment where you want to help someone to make sure that you're talking about the same switch, you can turn the light on and off something that is not available in other versions of Cisco switches before the 9300. So it's not as major, but it's quite critical when you're dealing with multiple systems and multiple switches.
Functionality. Well, one of the functions that we are missing is a faster route based on OSPF. Other than that, it could provide an upgrade without a hitless upgrade. Well, now it is a very fast upgrade, which is also okay. We had a case when the platform crashed, but that was a specific case. We were happy with this product.
They are consistently reliable and this switch in particular is a very affordable solution. We can place the Cisco Catalyst 1000 Series Switches gear in areas that we normally would not place a switch because it is affordable enough to make it justifiable. And because it is a reliable solution, we are confident it will continue to provide service over the long haul.
Cisco by and far does a great job with the Catalyst line. From a layer 2 dumb switch all the way up to ISP carrier grade switching within the Catalyst portfolio. The best part about it is command parity among the various tiers of product. The only differences are going to lie in what features are available per switch.
No, the packets flow. Sometimes you will see collisions and broadcast storms can happen which will slow performance but that can be fixed and the packets will flow.
We rarely have issues with the product. I have only had to contact support one time since we put it in and that was to see if another vendor was giving me accurate information on an issue I was having.
Cisco Networking Academy partners with many local Colleges and High Schools to provide great hands-on training. You do need to drive to learn the topic. The in-class session only go so far. You really need to apply this to the real world. Cisco makes it easy for business to connect via CLC or Cisco Learning Credits.
The implementation of the Cisco Catalyst 1000 Series Switches is fairly seamless, especially if you are familiar with Cisco products. We have had Brocade switch gear in place too, and the differences between the manufacturers [are] not a major issue.
We do have other vendors. For example, Juniper, Fortinet, and there are quite a few others. And Cisco is pretty good because we know the workflow, we know how the operating system works. We are much more familiar with Cisco products and we know the support system behind it. So in terms of comparing with others, I think it stands out. It's one of our top products to go to
We are exclusive Cisco at our organization. In truth part of the reason is, with one type of switch and one manufacturer, it is easier to support. It is also easier to give consistent training to our staff in our tech department