The main use cases for Juniper vSRX would be primarily for a data center scenario device, and there's a significant focus on the other core elements.

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN's main use cases for us will be data center deployment for enterprise level.

The most useful feature for Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is the single pane of glass management because we also use Meraki onsite. It's a standard Cisco solution, and because Cisco is who they are and what they can provide, we use Cisco for compute and network, and we use NetApp for storage, so that's what we generally do.

I have absolutely seen scenarios where the decentralized management capability improved operations and workflows.

There's nothing I could put my finger on right away for improvements in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. There is definitely nothing that Juniper does that Cisco doesn't do. Cisco will do everything Juniper does and then some. The negative, or the downside of Cisco is the knowledge base; you need to be a little bit more tech-savvy and network-savvy to work with Cisco, while Juniper is a lot more user-friendly from what I can see, especially in terms of configuration and any kind of roll back. But in terms of market leaders, Cisco is capable of doing anything you want it to do, as far as I can see.

I have just recently been working with Juniper.

I have contacted Cisco support for one-on-one support for a very unique or bespoke configuration where there are a lot of rules and policies going on in the background, maybe some interconnecting or conflicting with one another, but in terms of the actual product or problems with the product, nothing I'm aware of.

I would consider Cisco support a 10 out of 10.

Positive

In my experience, customers are realizing the return on investment with Cisco in 12 months. Within the year, I've done work with customers in the last couple of years that we've upgraded from Avaya six to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN in a Cisco network environment, and they are now back to do that with the remainder of their company, so they've realized the value in 12 months and are willing to invest in the remainder of their organization.

I am working on the Juniper vSRX solution.

I work with switches, routers, firewalls, and any IT consultant tasks, and I work at the core. I have a CCNA, and I'm actually doing a Juniper certification exam in 3 hours, so I continually work on upskilling, as part of what I do.

If it's enterprise level, you'll deploy your Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN in a couple of hours. You can draw it down there if you've already got a Catalyst or an existing environment. If you are starting up from scratch, it's hard to put a timeframe on it because it depends on criteria, but if you're replacing something with a Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN and you know what you're doing along with using the CLI and your backups, a couple of hours would be plenty of time, a half a day or maybe a little bit more wouldn't hurt.

There are AI features, and I'm not 100% privy to them because I just haven't been involved in that element, but they do exist.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN an eight.

My title is Information Technology Consultant at a company named Island Networks.

Positive

Positive

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is the standard configuration across all sites, facilitated by templates. This solution helps in the ease of management and compliance configuration, which is deployed everywhere. 

It also simplifies troubleshooting and provides full mesh topology for branch connectivity to data centers. All branch locations, along with central locations, are on SD-WAN and gathered in the data center. Many customers combine it with local Internet breakout for SaaS applications.

The valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN include its security policies and zone-based firewall that are applied to every site, as well as application-aware routing. Security is standard compliant, eliminating config drift that was prevalent before manual configurations. Application-aware routing offers flexibility in using different lines for traffic, depending on the policy implemented.

The main area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is the lack of documentation, which often lags behind the software releases. This is especially notable since Cisco acquired the solution and is still integrating it into its overall environment.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for the last three years.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten for stability. While some software-related issues and bugs were encountered, they did not cause the whole environment to crash. Sites were able to continue functioning, although there were limitations in making changes at those times.

The ease of configuration and features like zero-touch provisioning enhance the scalability of Cisco SD-WAN, especially in disaster recovery situations. I would rate scalability a nine out of ten. The initial implementation faced some issues, but it has improved with newer software versions.

The customer service and support for Cisco SD-WAN are satisfactory, rated as eight out of ten. 

However, Cisco's ongoing reorganizations have affected the quality of technical support, which varies depending on the engineer handling cases.

Positive

Before Cisco SD-WAN, I used traditional MPLS or eVPN, IPVPN networks. The switch was made for easier management and standard compliance, which is enforced by the SD-WAN product itself.

The initial setup involves getting the underlay and controllers in place to migrate from the old to the new network. I deployed in parallel, allowing both networks to coexist, and then migrated sites to the new central control plane.

For a complete project, we had two central administrators and designers, along with three or four teams managing the remote locations. The process took approximately one year to migrate about 280 sites.

The pricing for Cisco SD-WAN is rated eight out of ten, with some variability depending on the reseller discounts and the size of the enterprise. It is also relatively cost-effective for smaller businesses when using the Meraki version.

We evaluated other solutions but chose Cisco SD-WAN due to its flexibility, support for our requirements, and the preference of many of our customers who were already using Cisco-based solutions.

I would recommend working out detailed use cases and requirements before implementation. Cisco SD-WAN is quite flexible, however, without a solid foundational design, users might struggle with too many options, leading to a poor rollout design. 

Overall, I rate Cisco SD-WAN as nine out of ten.

Viptela is one part of SD-WAN that can give you an internet connection with the help of stacking. You can create a stack in the environment called a TLOC. With the help of TLOC, you can configure your ISPs in one bundle, giving you the network's resiliency. The best part is that you will get a few connections immediately onto your network.

If one of your ISPs goes down or has latency in your environment, Cisco SD-WAN will detect the issue and explain why the ISP is down. This is the solution's best feature, as it allows you to monitor your ISP links very well from their side. The solution's configuration is easy and not that hard. The solution's central management allows you to raise cases and get support.

The solution should be more user-friendly.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution's technical support team supports you on your tickets region-wise.

The solution's initial setup is neither very simple nor too complex. Someone with good network knowledge can easily configure the solution to their environment.

Cisco provides the best support, and that's why most people are using it. Cisco is a brand right now that provides a fast solution for networks. Cisco SD-WAN is a cloud-based solution. Users who want the best support can choose Cisco SD-WAN.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly. This feature enhances operational efficiency by centralizing control plans and policy management, making applying SD-WAN features across numerous devices easier. The central policy enforcement feature is also highly beneficial, particularly regarding network security. With this feature, security policies can be defined centrally, streamlining security management across the network. Another valuable aspect is the improved link utilization, which previously took a lot of work to implement. It enables granular control over link management, quality of service, and application prioritization, enhancing overall network performance. Furthermore, integrating APIs facilitates automation and simplifies routing, a previously unattainable capability.

Cisco should develop a clear roadmap, ensuring seamless integration between Meraki and Viptela. Simplifying the definition and implementation could add significant value, as it can be complex due to multiple product integrations and customization requirements.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for two to three years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We work mostly with enterprise companies such as banking institutes. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

Cisco's technical support services are always good. They are always present whenever we need their assistance in resolving issues.

Positive

The initial setup is more complex than other vendors but relatively easy. I'd rate the process around seven out of ten. Regarding deployment, it's mostly on-premises. Once the initial configuration is set up, deployment takes little time. Once policies are configured, onboarding is efficient. Even for hundreds of branches, deployment can be done in weeks.

The product is not too expensive. It is competitive considering security features. The licensing cost is typically based on bandwidth subscription. For example, you must purchase a corresponding subscription if you have a bandwidth range of one to five Mbps. While this may seem insignificant for smaller bandwidth needs, it can add up for organizations with multiple links. It's worth noting that some other vendors, like Huawei and Fortinet, don't charge for bandwidth subscriptions in their SD-WAN solutions.

SD-WAN has significantly improved our customers' network management. It brings a lot of efficiency, particularly through automation. Instead of manually configuring each device, we can utilize a centralized management platform to push configurations and manage devices. It enhances operational efficiency and provides better visibility into network operations. Additionally, it facilitates the deployment of advanced features, such as gigabit capabilities, which might otherwise be challenging to implement.

The scalability and flexibility of Cisco SD-WAN have brought significant benefits to our clients. From a business perspective, it has led to better management and improved quality of service for applications. Optimizing application performance and enabling multiple applications hosting on servers with enhanced quality has played a crucial role in enhancing service levels.

The traffic management capabilities play a crucial role in optimizing SD-WAN performance. With different types of circuits like MPLS, Internet, 4G, and 5G, organizations prioritize critical applications for reliable service. It optimizes application traffic across the most suitable circuits. It offers traffic optimization and error correction to enhance throughput and ensure efficient traffic flow even in link quality issues.

The integration into infrastructure has impacted IT overhead and costs. While there is an additional pricing model for the subscriptions, its efficiency must also be considered as it adds significant value. It is not a hardware-agnostic platform requiring integration with Cisco hardware. However, since many of our customers already use Cisco products, the migration from non-SD-WAN to SD-WAN was relatively seamless, with minimal problems.

Depending on their needs, if routing capabilities are prioritized, Cisco and Huawei offer extensive routing features, making them strong contenders among SD-WAN vendors. However, if security is a top concern, Palo Alto or Fortinet are worth considering. Cisco's solution is particularly robust in routing, boasting a significant market share.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

The product's application delivery feature needs improvement. Its ability to provide efficient reliability during multiple WAN link failures could be improved. The second consideration revolves around the port reliability of the link. Moving to the third point, while Cisco's advanced solutions excel in high-compute environments typical of software-based companies, they may fall short in addressing the needs of organizations with high-compute and high-storage infrastructures, especially those preferring hybrid or on-premises setups. Silver Peak outperforms Cisco in this area due to its WAN optimization techniques. To bridge this gap and accelerate product adoption, they could integrate WAN optimization solutions into their SD-WAN portfolio through strategic decisions such as acquiring robust WAN optimization solutions like Riverbed Steelhead or integrating its legacy product, with modern SD-WAN capabilities.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for six years.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the platform's scalability a ten. Currently, over 5,000 users are working with SD-WAN. As for plans, while the exact numbers are uncertain, usage is expected to grow.

The technical support services are good.

Positive

The decision to opt for Cisco SD-WAN over other tools depends on various factors, such as the specific environment, customer requirements, and the solution's scalability. Ultimately, it emerged as the best fit for these customers and their budgets. While acknowledging that it can be costly, it's imperative that the customer can afford the solution, considering its functionality. For instance, it facilitates seamless application delivery by enabling the migration of applications to the cloud.

Regarding the initial setup experience of Cisco SD-WAN, I rate the process a ten out of ten. While I wouldn't describe it as easy, the setup process is highly professional and efficient. As for the deployment environment, Cisco SD-WAN can be used in any configuration, whether public, private, or hybrid cloud. However, it may be most suitable for companies with a private cloud infrastructure focused on web applications rather than high computing and storage environments. Deployment time depends on various factors, such as planning and available resources. If everything is well-planned and resources are readily available, onboarding a device can take less than an hour. However, for greenfield deployments without existing infrastructure components, deployment time can vary significantly based on the organization's planning and commitment, making it difficult to provide a specific estimate.

We have observed a return on investment (ROI) with Cisco SD-WAN. The timeframe to realize this ROI varies based on several factors, such as the number of locations being addressed and the core objectives of the deployment. External factors like SLAs with third-party vendors and internet service providers also play a significant role in determining the timeline. Therefore, it depends on the unique circumstances of each deployment.

The primary advantage we've observed is the simplification of deployment, leading to decreased IT costs and enhanced operational efficiency. It also optimizes various dependencies from an architectural perspective. In supporting our cloud migration and multi-cloud strategy, Cisco SD-WAN, particularly through Cisco Umbrella, has addressed the critical factor of sustaining user experience during application migration. By facilitating local Internet breakout in remote sites, users can access applications directly through Cisco Umbrella, ensuring a comprehensive security solution throughout the migration process. Additionally, the scalability and flexibility of Cisco SD-WAN have been highly beneficial for our organization. Compared to other solutions, such as VeloCloud, Forty SD-WAN, and SilverPeak SD-WAN, Cisco's integrated approach with Viptela has stood out, offering enhanced software-defined networking features and centralized orchestration. This scalability has allowed us to expand our network architecture globally while streamlining management efforts.

Furthermore, integrating Cisco SD-WAN into our existing infrastructure has significantly reduced costs. While I cannot disclose specific percentages, we have strategically reinvested these savings where needed, enabling us to migrate retail access links from MPLS to the Internet while maintaining security and investing strategically in core services. For those considering Cisco SD-WAN, I highly recommend it for its true flavor of software-defined networking in WAN infrastructure. With robust support from the Cisco team, channel partners, and readily available resources in the market, Cisco SD-WAN offers a reliable, advantageous solution for long-term network management and optimization.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to interconnect the branch network.

Cisco's performance is very good. The branches that we installed went on smoothly. We operate with no complaints. When it comes to management, it's simple. One PIN will allow us visibility into everything. Another thing is troubleshooting; we can see the issues quickly, dig down, and know exactly what the issue is.

Since the new one comes with the included IPSec tool, we don't have any security issues. It's already covered because all the data is fully encrypted between the branch and the office.

Cisco provides visibility. We can see the performance of the branch. Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue.

The user interface needs improvement. Users should be able to find various features faster without much tweaking.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN since 2019.

The product is stable. We don't have any downside so far.

Cisco is very stable, whether a branch network or the branches. We don't have any issues with them.

Seven members of the team interact with the solution.

We haven't encountered any issues with scalability when adding more branches or refining the solution.

We interact with them whenever we need access to the services.

Positive

I have used SilverPeek. It is made for the end user, not for technical engineers. It is easy to deploy and has better visibility of how the network is performing than Cisco.

I have used both solutions. I have evaluated some other solutions. Technically, all the SD-WAN solutions work the same, so it depends on the organization. Cost is a factor. Cisco is on the higher side but is stable. There have been a few upgrades.

The initial setup is straightforward. Initially, it may seem a bit complex, but overall it is straightforward.

Deployment typically takes from four to six months to complete. Additional time may be needed, especially if issues with procuring hub routers were not included in the original plan. Developing the actual network implementation plan may take around six months. However, the actual migration process after that is quick. It usually takes less than three months to migrate the network fully.

We work with three guys from the internal team and four from vendors.

From a technical perspective, we used to experience failures, especially when using two service providers where data wouldn't come up if one link went down. We no longer encounter that issue. We're able to utilize both links simultaneously. Thus, we haven't faced the necessity of quick upgrades as we did when relying on a single link. Having one link operational at any given time was less elastic.

Cisco is expensive.

We need to renew the licensing after three years whenever updates are required. These licenses are valid for three years. There's no longer a need for routine physical maintenance of the devices, which is typical for network devices.

We initially faced some challenges with sizing and acquiring the necessary devices. We encountered some issues with missing hub routers. However, once we overcame those obstacles, we involved Cisco professional services. They assisted us in creating the low-level design and supported the initial site deployments. After that, we were able to proceed independently. Our corporate professional services team guided us through the process and helped us develop the design.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We have numerous use cases where it can optimize cost savings, particularly in terms of connectivity. By avoiding the need to backhaul traffic through expensive central locations, organizations can achieve significant cost reductions, avoiding unnecessary capital expenditures.

The most valuable features, application awareness, and failover resilience, stand out as key considerations for users.

As the majority of our applications now reside in the cloud, there's a growing need for solutions that revolve around cloud-centric policies. Currently, the convergence between on-premise and cloud policies lacks centralization. The platform that seamlessly facilitates the translation of on-premise policies into cloud-compatible equivalents would enhance efficiency, ensuring that policies are consistent and stable, regardless of the hosting environment, allowing for smoother service delivery. An area for improvement lies in enhancing the integration with the security functions of the SD-WAN.

I have been working with it for a year now.

The stability of the system is quite robust. Initially, there might be some minor challenges, particularly in the first couple of months, regarding certificate issues.

The scalability is highly efficient. When operating on-premises, scaling up involves a comprehensive analysis of the architecture and the provisioning of service resources. The scalability is directly linked to the provisioning of these resources. In terms of licensing, there is a notable benefit as Cisco now offers free licensing.

The technical support experience has been consistently positive. If there are any delays, they are minimal, and the overall efficiency is commendable. Notably, the support structure allows for direct engagement with the assigned support personnel without the need for multiple escalations. Opening a case typically connects me directly with the responsible assistant, avoiding the frustration of having the case passed through various levels. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Having worked with both Fortinet and Cisco, a notable distinction lies in the user experience. Cisco offers a more sophisticated and customizable experience, particularly evident in meetings. However, Fortinet excels in simplicity, making it a preferred choice for those who prioritize ease of use. In terms of customization, Cisco stands out, providing a more granular approach, while Fortinet is considered more straightforward and suitable for users who prefer a less intricate setup. The choice between them depends on the specific needs and preferences, with Fortinet being a good option for a straightforward approach and Cisco offering more advanced customization possibilities.

The initial setup involves a learning curve that can be steep, especially for local professionals who have direct access to private campuses like OneTrack. However, once you become familiar with the process and navigate through the online procedures, you'll find that it becomes more straightforward and kicks off smoothly.

As a new contractor, the deployment process is expected to take around six months, approximately half of which will be dedicated to virtualization and fine-tuning.

While the initial deployment costs are undoubtedly high, the significant monthly savings are notable, particularly in terms of operational efficiency and online-centric functions. The achievement is at least a thirty percent reduction in overall costs.

The initial cost is quite significant, but the investment is worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.