Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points are well suited for most applications as they scale very well and can be configured to work in a lot of different scenarios. However they are quite costly so they may not be suited for all business purposes. But they do perform and deliver and rarely cause issues.
Best in small networks & appropriate in industrial areas. AP works fine in any temperature & location (in remote locations office or remote location). Open area wireless connectivity is good with good range. Simple VLAN management and management are good. Backup and restoration is very good. Small home offices using wireless network work awesome.
Due to multiple switches in a single network environment, communication issues are common; therefore, productivity is effected. After installing D-Link Wireless, we resolved these kind of issues in our network.
One windows solution make management easy via D-Link Wireless.
Logs and troubleshooting is now easily handled. Pictorial form help in configuration and users management.
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.
Cisco is providing the best in class access points. We would be focusing Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points to have the common platform. We are waiting for cloud implementation on DNA or cloud monitoring of 9800cl in Meraki dashboard. It's reliable, tagging gives a lot of flexibility. Virtualization finally works as expected.
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.
In testing, Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points outperformed all other APs in our testing. Performance was second to none in the testing lineup. Reliability has been proven over the many years we have used this product. The new 9100s have also not presented any hardware reliability issues for us so far. Some of the other vendors offer some nice to have features such as Bluetooth device diagnostics and very deep AI assurance.
We studied and selected D-Link due to usage in a limited area, and it is a very cost effective solution; therefore, D-Link Wireless AP and D-Link Wireless Controller [were] selected for our organization. We also [researched] Cisco, but Cisco was an expensive product and not appropriate in our required area or task; therefore, we selected D-Link.
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.
