Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers are easy to manage, and easy operate. Also Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers devices can manage lots of Access Points at the same time. And they have lots of wireless features especially Cisco specific ones (application visibility control). Last but …
The integration with Cisco solutions are excellet, with WLC 9800 plus Cisco DNAC the troubleshoot are made easy, if you have 3D maps on DNAC, you can navigate on the place were the problem is marked and see how the signal are near it. All connections are stable and trustfull.
Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points are well suited for dense Client solutions. We have used these in areas where we have a large number of guests that need top-notch connectivity without ever losing connection. The one area where we do have difficulty is in outdoor deployment, where large areas need to be covered, but we do not have physical connectivity in order to get the access points connected. This is not an access point issue but more of a physical connectivity limitation.
I believe that Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers are well suited for the enterprise environment for medium sized to very large companies. While there are smaller WLC appliances for smaller sized businesses, a case can be made for simpler or more cost effective wireless licensing solutions (e.g. Cisco Meraki). Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers are extremely well suited for dense deployments like stadiums, arenas, hospitals, theaters, and large offices because of their ability to support a large number of APs with a very diverse technology feature set.
So this product actually helps in healthcare facilities where we have a wireless, we call this WOW monitors. It's Wireless On Wheels. So we use those monitors to the patient's room to room. So in that case, rather than connecting it to wire, so it really helps us to connect through the WIFI and access the patients whenever we be needed.
They could definitely download their code faster. When we first get them out of the box and join them on the network, it takes probably 20, 30 minutes per access point to download the new code from the wireless controller and then reboot itself and then come back online.
When you're configuring it on the controller, if you want to switch access point groups, we have them broken out per site. Every time you add it to one of those groups, it also has to reboot. That's like downtime for us. That could be improved, I think.
Configuring wireless settings is very confusing because various settings are scattered all over the interface in different tabs
Lots of settings use Cisco's technical verbiage rather than common phrasing, so it's confusing what a lot of settings will do and requires researching the meaning before modifying the setting
The interface could be easier to use to do simple tasks such as reboot an access point
Although it is a very good product, support is easy and can manage by Level 1 support persons and downtime is too much less but still there is a cost factor matters which is consider by each organization. Furthermore, organizations also compare with other competitors so it is hard to pursue and defend the high prices.
The Cisco Catalyst 9120 Access Points have been a solid deployment for me. Using their interface is a mix of new and old. They run IOS, so if you know the CLI, you can easily navigate around them. You can join them to an older controller if it supports a certain version, you can join it to a new 9800 controller--very straight forward--and you can run the embedded wireless controller on them directly. I've found this to be very useful at smaller sites. The Cisco Catalyst 9120 Access Points are not limited to feature sets like the older generations' mobility express platform.
As I said before, the only thing we miss in our old model is the fact that the management interface never received an improvement in design. It has the same look and feels since it was launched. It's not that it's hard to use. It's just the case of could be modernized.
Downtime fear is the first fear which IT persons look and want to eliminate as much as they can but eventually you have to face it as nothing is perfect. Cisco Wireless Lan controller are feasible to use and easy to manage and other than this their issue reported are pretty low so you can get the best up time. now it also depends on scenario as well as environment.
Using Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points you can expect good performance, if not excellent. Coupled with other tools and managment systems you can easily gain good insight and ease of management. Flexible deployment variations help you adopt the equipment to work for most any required scenario you could think of. It's a well designed and evolved product.
Cisco Wireless Lan controller are feasible to use and easy to manage and other than this their issue reported are pretty low so you get the better uptime. if your get the uptime then it means its a stable product in your environment. Product performance also depends on the product management and Cisco Wireless Lan controller management is easy so you can get the great output.
Cisco has been very good at correcting early issues with their code. Their TAC support has been fantastic when I would open a case with issues I was facing. Even though the hardware was new, they were very familiar with the interfaces and issues I was having. In the past I've been concerned about adopting a new product right away because of support issues. That was not the case here. Once I had the deployment up and running, they have had a good run of reliability.
As usual, the support from Cisco's TAC (Technical Assistance Center) is lacking. Granted, they always get the job done, but the amount of lead time on a non-emergency is enough to make you just handle it yourself. The good news is that if you ask for Cisco's assistance and forget about it, they'll jump on by the time you've forgotten where you were in troubleshooting it and have it fixed for you.
Originally, when we deployed our first controller it was on a very limited basis. We only deployed it to our administration building and our High School. It was pretty straight forward. Because this was new to us we leaned heavily on our Cisco partner to assist us. With our last upgrade, we upgraded the controllers, added redundancy and expanded the building count along with new SSID's and restrictions. It went much easier, but again, we did rely on Cisco TAC and our partner to clarify and assist as needed. Having already been familiar with the product help tremendously.
We are migrating from Aironet platform to Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points. That's more flexible, and we do it to sync switching, SDWAN, and wifi under one family.
The Aironet access points are used for employee WiFi access, and they integrate well with Meraki. They would offer a separate guest network, too, but the decision was made to physically separate the guest network, so even if a bad actor would gain access to the ethernet port of the AP, they'd still not see any company traffic.
These access points offer flexibility in deployment scenarios, supporting both standalone and controller-based architectures. Organisations can choose the model that best suits their current needs and scale as their requirements grow. Cisco Aironet Access Points are compatible with Cisco's Wireless LAN controllers, allowing for centralized management and monitoring of a large number of access points across the network. With the recent changes, it will even support cloud base controllers.
Cisco is a brand name and people trust on it. if any one thing about the networking then Cisco is among those brand which is count as trusted brand and people rely on it. Also it support is good so people can use it. Cisco Wireless Lan controller are easy to use and manage so it requires less effort.
We have had our [Cisco Wireless LAN Controller] 5508s for a very long time now and although they are getting dated, they have earned us our money's worth with consistency, stability, and ease of use. Users have minimal wireless complaints and when they do seldom are they WLC-related.
