Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers Review
June 16, 2025

Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers Review

Daniel Cummins | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Modules Used

  • Cisco Catalyst 9800-80 Wireless Controller

Overall Satisfaction with Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers

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.
  • It is a fair replacement for the 8540. It is mostly capable of being a one-to-one replacement, and so I would put it as a very net positive product. I don't think that there were a lot of pains in migrating from one platform to the other if again, you knew what you're doing in your design and able to make all that work predictably. And so very positive. I think overall it's been a very good solution of the one option out there. It was a very good solution.
So obviously we've integrated DNA center or catalyst center, and I want to emphatically state that DNA Center Catalyst Center is a terrible product and it has never worked and all of the promises and virtues of it have never come to fruition. It is obnoxiously convoluted in ways that it does not need to be out of the gate as a tool that would replace prime infrastructure. It does not achieve even 15% of what you could easily do in prime infrastructure or getting reports back or getting clear data back from a legacy product like PI. No, it has maybe one or two features within DNA center that even at this point in its maturity I use and rely on, and I'm not an idiot when it comes to it. I've read every deployment guide, I've read every data sheet. I have had multiple professional engagements both within Cisco as well as outside of Cisco, third party experts within DNA center and Catalyst Center. We've had many engineers within the product and around the product work with us, work with me since 2019. I'm not a novice when it comes to it. It just has never fulfilled any of the promises. And I have frankly been gaslit for the better part of six years with regard to the tool and have been waiting very patiently to this point for it to come to actual maturity and usefulness as a wireless management tool. I'm sure it does switch provisioning and software image updating just fine.
Honestly it's been just as solid as AireOS, I mean, and I had AireOS controllers that had never rebooted for two years when there was not a need or when you get to the end of life and code doesn't change very often. I think the 9800's have been incredibly reliable as a pure hardware platform. Very reliable tool.
I think sometimes the CPU spikes and the GUI times out, and again, I know there are bugs related to code where it wiped out the certificates and then you lost all GUI access entirely. I've not encountered those because I read the release notes very carefully and I don't upgrade until I make sure that the resolve caveats are well within range of tolerance. I mean the occasional CPU spike where the management plane is just unavailable or some weird SSH stall, I'd give it a 9.
Yes and no. I mean, I think there's an unnecessary convolution to the rollout of those policies tags and how you integrate them to a group of access points. Again, I get why they did that because it was seen as though you would recycle a lot of them and instead of building unique ones for each, but you find that, I have found that if you have a large enough enterprise, you have a large enough vertical or horizontal integration to your enterprise, you find that one site or one class of devices that are in a specific site, very different requirements are very different peculiarities or bugs or whatever compatibilities that require you to tailor those sets of parameters and those configurations specifically to that area and that site, but not elsewhere. You know what I mean? And so you find that from your beginning design, it becomes important to think about those things ahead of time, even though none of the tools or none of the design guides or deployment guides really get you thinking in that way again. So it's say, an experienced person could leverage those tools or those tools, leverage that design hierarchy more quickly or more. They could see where the problems would be on the horizon and design around that. But no, I don't think what they were trying to do with that really pays off. And so if there's a value, was that a value question? Is there, or am I just supposed to vetch how easy or difficult? Gosh, I mean it, I would put it at a four out of 10 in terms of 10 being the simplest and zero being the hardest. Yeah, I mean, I actually think it's too complex. Even as somebody that built a pretty insane architecture within all of those policies and tags and managing, I think I'm managing probably 85 site tags among right now, probably like 5000 access points and more coming all the time. So yeah, not a novice on it whatsoever. But yeah, I look forward to what they do in code moving forward to better arrange that sort of problem and help people get the right architecture or design. So yeah, probably a four out of 10. It could be way better actually.

Do you think Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers delivers good value for the price?

No

Are you happy with Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers's feature set?

Yes

Did Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers live up to sales and marketing promises?

Yes

Did implementation of Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers go as expected?

Yes

Would you buy Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers again?

Yes

Cisco Catalyst Center, Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE), Infoblox DDI (BloxOne)
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.

Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers Feature Ratings

Not Rated
Zero-Touch Provisioning
Not Rated
WLAN Performance Monitoring
Not Rated
Topology Maps
Not Rated
Layer 7 Visibility
Not Rated
Power over Ethernet Support
Not Rated
Wireless Security
Not Rated

Comments

More Reviews of Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers