My experience with Cisco SD-WAN
Overall Satisfaction with Cisco SD-WAN
We use it across the whole organization. Cinépolis is one of the biggest cinema companies around the world. We have at least one MX84 box in each cinema. Also in the Mexico data center we have two mx-450s on HA. We also have some virtual MX mounted on Amazon and Azure. We implemented it to solve the frequent issue that we had in some of our sites that happened when our ISP had a problem. We sometimes lost full connection to the cinema's servers. With this solution we have 2 different carriers at each site and it gives us higher availability.
Pros
- Auto VPN
- Easy management of the clients that connect to our network.
- Easy implementation of other devices like switches, cameras (Meraki MV), access points (Merakis MR)
- Easy access to information like availability, loss of carriers, latency, and network usage
Cons
- Sometimes the Meraki devices does not correctly failover.
- The support process on Meraki takes too long.
- You cannot access this devices by a command line. It is only accessible via GUI.
- It give us inmediately the informacion of the carrier disponibility.
- It let us see inmediatly the information about network usage.
- SD wan helped us to have a higher disponibility
Before we implemented SD-WAN with Meraki we were using SonicWall boxes. At the cinemas, we used the TZ series and as concentrators we had the NSA series. It took a little long to manage it. On Meraki SD-WAN solution we can use Templates, and in just a couple of minutes we can make an immediate change to hundreds of sites at the same time.
Do you think Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN's feature set?
Yes
Did Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN again?
Yes
Comments
Please log in to join the conversation