TrustRadius Insights for Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers are summaries of user sentiment data from TrustRadius reviews and, when necessary, third party data sources.
Pros
Efficient Configuration Process: Users have praised the software for its straightforward and efficient configuration process, which is based on profiles and tags. This approach enables users to effectively manage a large number of Access Points (APs) with ease and precision.
Intuitive GUI: The intuitive GUI has been highlighted by users as a standout feature for its user-friendly design. It simplifies tasks such as provisioning new APs, troubleshooting issues, and monitoring wireless networks seamlessly.
High Availability: Users highly value the system's high availability as well as consistent reliability. They feel ensured to have uninterrupted operations even during critical activities like AP adoption, upgrades, and site management.
We have a lot of customers using the Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers. This is from very critical environments that need top performing Wi-Fi and many others. Cisco offers an extremely wide catalogue of controllers and is very flexible in configuration, matching every environment. With URWB and wi-fi nowadays, it’s ideal to be able to configure, manage and monitor both from the same platform.
Pros
Config flexibility
Overall view and dashboards
Compatibility
Cons
Making it more easy for new users
More dashboards
Can’t even think of something else
Likelihood to Recommend
In almost all environments, you can recommend the Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers. There are many options from cloud to on prem and many types of access points. For the very small companies it, the Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers might be overkill, although, it’s future proof! So every company can indeed benefit from it to be honest! Highly recommended.
We use Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers at one of our site. It supports WiFi 6 and all catalyst Access points. It supports ISSU It comes with more security features and has lot more capabilities than traditional Aironet WLC.
Pros
WiFi6
ISSU
Troubleshooting
Cons
Managing via Catalyst Centre
Likelihood to Recommend
With ISSU, we can do upgrades with minimum or no network downtime.
VU
Verified User
Engineer in Information Technology (5001-10,000 employees)
We use 22 Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers in our organization for ~10K APs. They are set up in HA mode and have been great to use so far. The management GUI is intuitive and full featured. They have a nice tie in to Catalyst Center for an overall view of the entire network.
Pros
Stable
Full Featured
Intuitive
Cons
Tie in to Catalyst Center has some gaps in knowledge
It would be nice to have an automatic way to set up site tags
It is a little slow at times
Likelihood to Recommend
Well suited for large deployments using a controller based architecture. Not well suited for smaller deployments
VU
Verified User
Contributor in Information Technology (5001-10,000 employees)
We use a dedicated pair at each hospital, with some remote anchoring to other sites within a "market" or outside if need be for guest traffic on dedicated internet circuits. The centralization and unified management interface has been fantastic, and the automated setup integration with DNAC is an added bonus.
Pros
unified management and operation interface(s)
automated setup integration with DNAC
built in troubleshooting tools to assist all levels of engineers
Cons
The biggest issues we have had have been software related. Requiring code upgrades or reloads to fix an unfixable problem.
Some of the troubleshooting utilities aren't perfectly clear as to what theyre doing or how to set them up or what to expect results wise or resource wise.
I think there is a lack of filtering in certain displays where you cannot use the "contains" option for certain device type filtering. But those options should be universal in all views.
Likelihood to Recommend
I think any size organization can benefit from them. The smaller "L" models work well for a smaller organization and of course, the same answer for the larger platforms. The failover/redundancy options are quite nice and the unified setup and UI is always nice for consistency.
It's the central controller. There's actually two HA systems. So each data center has a wireless controller and about 2000 APs converged to each one, and that number's going to grow to about 3000 APs per controller and they're used in an Active-Active N+1 setup. So all of our wireless is done in central switching. We don't do any flex connect or local switching. So all wireless traffic converges to just these two boxes.
Pros
I think the updates are great. ISSU upgrading code is fantastic. I think the speed with which CAPWAP converges or reconverges, I think the redundancy mechanisms for roaming APs to other controllers is very good. I think overall, getting away from more of a monolithic processor where subprocesses handle what they call the WNCD tasks, I think fundamentally is an improvement in performance.
The radioactive tracing, all of the troubleshooting and all of the logging and all of the importing and exporting features for logging and analytics within the controller itself is really, really good compared to the predecessor AireOS.
Cons
The big one for me is tables. When you go to look at an inventory of an AP monitoring or a client monitoring, it truncates the list to only a hundred items in the view of this table, even if there's thousands or tens of thousands of entries. And so if you go to sort a column, it's only sorting the portion of the first 100 within the table view. That is a big shortcoming of the tool. Being able to filter and sort the live data as it's happening and the live traffic and interactions as it's happening is enormously helpful for a wireless engineer. Exporting that process with any kind of delay defeats the purpose of analyzing real-time issues. So being able to troubleshoot and review data at a glance is a huge lacking problem on this platform compared to its predecessor, the AireOS modern UI, or there's the classic view and the new view under the modern UI incorporated in like 8.3. It had a sortable table that let you filter and look at everything. So if I want to look at only the clients that are connected at one particular 8 0 2 11 protocol type, I can do that. If I want to sort it by data rates, I can do that. If I want to sort it by interference or SNR, I can do that on AireOS. I cannot do that on the 9800, and it is a big hurdle to being able to answer questions proficiently and quickly.
Likelihood to Recommend
I really like central switching. Central switching is converging all of the tunnels, fewer people can administer the product. It's much easier to scale, it's much easier to configure and it's much easier to get predictable results out of that. I have run FlexConnect before under AireOS. I'm proficient with it. But yeah, I think as a centralized controller it works very well. And I think as building redundancy with regard to not just HA-SSO but with an N plus one design, I think the scheme and logic and architecture of the platform is very well thought out and I don't know what use cases I would find it to be lacking. There's a few things when you drill into it, it actually is not that simple. AireOS I feel like was a lot simpler. I think the catalyst, how it breaks out the hierarchy of configuration requires each of these tags and profiles and policies and how you bring them together. Actually, even though they've decoupled a lot of these elements from how AireOS did it, I think fewer of those features, even though it was less extensible, it was not as easy or intuitive to deploy. So I think the intuition and how you actually construct a 9800, an entry engineer would struggle a lot more in a 9800. So I would not recommend the product if somebody did not already have a good foundation of network engineering.
So the 9800 controllers are for our wireless environment, we have wireless in all of our sites. And depending upon the site, it's anywhere between 20 APs on up to over 200.
Pros
It has a very easy user interface. Once you get into the GUI, once you have it up and running, it's very easy to manage and maintain. Its integration in the Catalyst Center is great as well.
Cons
Software distribution through Catalyst Center is sometimes a little bit of an issue, and I know this is about the 9800 controllers, but the EWCs for the 9130 APs, not very good at all. It doesn't work very well.
Likelihood to Recommend
Especially in our office environments, it's very easy to go in and set it up and deploy APs and provide wireless coverage. Primarily our office environments no longer use LAN. It's basically all WiFi, so they're very important for our office environments. On the negative side, we do have some deployment issues with our factories where we have coverage problems. That's not really a controller issue, but coverage problems and sometimes we run out of SSIDs because we have so many different environments, whether it's OT IT, certain SSIDs are for handheld, some are for scanners, some are for torque wrenches, so we can only deploy six SSIDs, so that's a restriction for us, some of our manufacturing facilities.
VU
Verified User
Engineer in Information Technology (10,001+ employees)
I use it to provision new access points and to troubleshoot client issues. I use it to export data that is parsed and help assess where our config is and if there are any issues that need to be accounted for and adjusted for.
Pros
I think it does a good job of, if you're unfamiliar with the product, it helps steer you on where to go. It has a feature to, I think it's like show me. So it has a list of things it'll do and it'll show you exactly where you need to click and go and walk you through if you have no experience with it.
I think it's a very comprehensive solution. There are a lot of things that you're able to do with it.
The GUI has pretty much everything you need, so I'll highlight the GUI. So I think the GUI has a lot of things that you can do in the CLI, but it's just much easier. So they do a good job on the GUI.
Cons
I think the dashboard could use some work. The primary dashboard, it could be updated and there could be some more customization.
I also think that from an organizational point, the GUI could be condensed maybe a little bit to make it easier for people.
If you don't know what you're doing, that it'll show you how to get there. So that initial, I don't know if there's an initial walkthrough that you can make use of, but maybe something like that.
Likelihood to Recommend
I mean, it's well suited for managing our access points and our wifi throughout our enterprise, so I think it does a great job of that. It connects all that catalyst center to kind of take that data and to really be able to visualize it. I think it's a good fit for the enterprise. If you have multiple APs, it's kind like a given, pretty much need something to control your wifi. As far as not, would it not be a good use case for, I don't know how to answer that. I think maybe the device limitation on if it couldn't support as many access points as you need. But I mean I love our controllers and I'm familiar with them, so maybe I'm biased because we're pretty much all Cisco, so I don't know where it wouldn't be a good, yeah, I'm not sure if I'm honest.
VU
Verified User
Administrator in Information Technology (501-1000 employees)
The wireless controller of Cisco simplified putting out wireless so we can just place access points out. They're automatically discovered essentially once they're deployed we just place a tag on them and they're ready to go. There's really no additional configuration beyond that. And just very simple.
Pros
Particularly well I would say especially compared to the previous generation of controllers, it gives a lot of additional troubleshooting logging tools for us to determine problems that didn't exist in prior devices. Where we used to have to send someone out, boots on the ground and physically show up at a location, there's a lot of tools now that we can use to remotely diagnose those problems.
Cons
The only downside I would say is the GUI performance is a little bit slow, even with a newer 9800, performance still lags a bit even compared to the previous generations. So I would like to see that improved. But aside from that, that's really the only issue that we have with it.
Likelihood to Recommend
Honestly, I mean well suited in the healthcare environment, it's well suited for everything that we do. It really doesn't, nothing that I see that's missing that I wish, hey, I wish it had this feature stability occasionally, but I think Cisco does a pretty good job with that. All things considered with the myriad of vendors and driver versions and things like that, I still think it's a very good product. Given all of those variables.
VU
Verified User
Engineer in Information Technology (10,001+ employees)
