Skip to main content
TrustRadius
Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)

Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)

Overview

What is Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)?

Currently supported by Cisco, but no longer sold, Cisco recommends migration to the Cisco Catalyst 9100 Family of Access Points, which offer greater performance and flexibility.

Read more
Recent Reviews

1815 - Pick your Weapon

4 out of 10
October 12, 2020
Incentivized
I thought of this model specifically (1815T) since in our campus we have two parts, the research part (Enterprise) and residential (Houses …
Continue reading
Read all reviews

Reviewer Pros & Cons

View all pros & cons
Return to navigation

Product Details

What is Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)?

Currently supported by Cisco, but no longer sold, Cisco recommends migration to the Cisco Catalyst 9100 Family of Access Points, which offer greater performance and flexibility.

Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued) Competitors

Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued) Technical Details

Operating SystemsUnspecified
Mobile ApplicationNo

Frequently Asked Questions

Currently supported by Cisco, but no longer sold, Cisco recommends migration to the Cisco Catalyst 9100 Family of Access Points, which offer greater performance and flexibility.

FortiAP and Ubiquiti WLAN are common alternatives for Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued).

Reviewers rate Performance highest, with a score of 9.1.

The most common users of Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued) are from Mid-sized Companies (51-1,000 employees).
Return to navigation

Comparisons

View all alternatives
Return to navigation

Reviews and Ratings

(27)

Attribute Ratings

Reviews

(1-3 of 3)
Companies can't remove reviews or game the system. Here's why
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Incentivized

We are using multiple types of APs at the moment, mostly 1815 and in some cases the 1852 and 2800 series. The model depends on the location and type of traffic. Most offices we built with 1815s are controlled by Mobility Express. For some warehousing, we are using 1852 Internal and External access points with directional antennas for great coverage. In the past, I built multiple warehouse networks based on the 2800 series with 5500 series WLCs.

  • Stable APs overall
  • Scalability is great. We also are mixing multiple models with Mobility Express
  • We now have, in total, 55 Mobility Express networks, distributed over multiple offices and customers. With Mobility Express there is no need to buy lots of WLCs
  • On the Mobility Express models, it’s hard to configure all from the GUI, and sometimes the GUI is buggy
  • In Mobility Express, the (virtual) controller is not able to push the right image to the APs. This sometimes results in not joining the APs
  • Some minor issues with firmware

1815s are perfect for deploying in offices as they have good coverage and a small form factor. For warehousing, we had to move to the 1852s as they have more power but are also a bit bigger. A good central management dashboard for the 55 (virtual) WLC would be great. As of now, we are managing all (virtual) WLC standalone. For baselining and updates, this takes a little bit more time than we wanted

  • It's plug and play with APIC-EM, so there's a low cost for installation.
  • We came from the 1242 series and are now with 1815 and 1852. Deploying and extending is now way quicker.
  • We expect the same life of these devices as we've had with all our other Cisco Aironet devices, so 5 years or more. This is great for our ROI.
I worked with Aruba and Huawei in the past. While Huawei needs a physical controller or standalone, Cisco allows options like Aruba to make more little groups at different locations, all with their own controller. So you have no dependencies on data centers. Combined with the great integrations in our Cisco only environment, (Switches, Routers, UCS, Hyperflex) we have a really stable environment.
Yes
We are using the Cisco Aironet 1815 and 1852 as a replacement for the Cisco Aironet 1142 series and later this year for the replacement of the Cisco Aironet 2600 series. We deliver wireless-as-a-service to our customers and, since most of the groups are maximum of 35 Als, we can now move to Mobility Express.
No, we are very happy with the choice of the new Cisco Aironet 1815 an 1850 series and I would select the same version again.
Yes
We pay for premium support because of our large amount of Cisco devices in the field. If we have an issue, this is possibly an issue for all of our customers. Paying a little for the great TAC support is well worth it.
No
January 13, 2019

Cisco Wireless

Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Incentivized
We use Cisco Access Points for multiple wireless networks within our organization as well as our remote retail store locations for guest access. These access points allow us to solve the need of having BYOD environments for both employees and guests.
  • Ease of use/configuration
  • Reliability
  • Expandibility
  • None so far!
These access points are great for our enterprise environment, and offer great coverage for all of our buildings. They are well suited for a retail environment to support the needs of consumers wanting WiFi access.
  • I cannot speak to the specifics of ROI, but these units do fulfill our business needs.
We have not used access points from other vendors.
No
Over the time we have used Cisco Access Points, we are now integrating more security into our wireless environments. We are now utilizing systems like Cisco ISE to provide restricted access to our wireless. If we had to select a new wireless solution, we would make sure that the new system is able to integrate with our security systems to provide the adequate security we are looking for.
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Incentivized
We use Cisco 3600s and 3700s as our primary access point and we also use the Officenet OEAP 612 1810 and 1815 for remote access users.
  • Ease of use
  • Troubleshooting tools on controller
  • No separate power needed
  • More plug and play
  • Faster throughput for OEAP
  • Dedicated radios for packet capture, no need to turn off other radios to do what is needed
[It's well suited] for Remote users for work at home
  • Very expensive
  • We have a lot of failure and we have to spend man power on replacing failed devices
  • Existing Relationship with the Vendor
No
  • One controller
  • Easy to change and move APS to different groups
  • Search in controller
Yes, but I don't use it
It is good, but not great
Return to navigation