Item: Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Points (discontinued)
Rating: 7
Author: Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Cisco Aironet and Catalyst Access Points

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

Cisco access points are installed by one group in our organization, but used within all of our offices. We have a few hundred of these deployed across our enterprise to provide both internal and guest wifi presence. The biggest reason for this is that they provide a fantastic wireless coverage that integrates well into the Cisco ecosystem.

Pros and Cons

Pros

Seamless Integration with existing Cisco Products.
Good coverage.
Consistent support.

Cons

Overpriced.
Installation can be finicky.
Proprietary terminology can be confusing to newcomers.

Return on Investment

Enhanced wireless coverage.
Consistent device management.
Quick deployment time, leading to increased user satisfaction.

Alternatives Considered

Cisco Meraki Wireless Access Point

Our selection of Cisco Aironet Access Points versus the Meraki Access Points was entirely on a political basis with our vendor. In the future, we are actually looking to migrate towards the Meraki system. Even though the Meraki feature-set is lacking, we really only require those features, and our cost would be largely cut by this migration. It would be a solid win, but maybe not recommendable to everyone.

Likelihood to Recommend

If your network team is a Cisco only shop, then look no further. You've got a good solution. If you're a small or medium-sized enterprise, this is another great option. I wouldn't recommend Cisco Aironet in a Juniper (or other) shop, or a large enterprise where the cost of scaling out becomes a factor.

Comments

Please log in to join the conversation

Aironet: Not the best nor the worst.