Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued) vs. Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers

Dead simple to setup, deploy, upgrade and manage. If a colleague was asking for a solid AP that just runs and runs without tiring out and they dont want to break the bank with the higher end units, this is a great place to look. I would say that you're going to have to deal with Cisco licensing support at some point during setup, but thats par for the course.

Incentivized

Setup is very quick as it is designed for smaller organizations. Of course, this comes with its own limitations, but it's really the question of what you need. If you can cover your office space with 3 to 4 access points, you got a pretty good alternative to the more enterprise-level of Cisco Wireless products, but you still get excellent throughput and signal strength.

• 4x4 MIMO 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz.
• 7Gbps at 5Ghz.
• AP with internal antennas. It is ideal for an office environment with reduced design and one that is white in color.
• CleanAir.
• Manageable by a Controller or by an internal controller using the Cisco Mobility Express feature.

Incentivized

• The WLC are very reliable. In the 10+ years the company has had them installed, we have not had any hardware or component failures.
• No need for reboots. The CISCO WLC is not like a router you may have at home which you may have to reboot every few weeks or months. It can run for months without needing a reboot.
• The Cisco WLC gives you a quick Network Summary when you first log into the system. This is very helpful to get a quick rundown on the status of your wireless network.

Incentivized

• Compared to an Aruba AP, Cisco [Aironet Access Points] should have at least 2 Ethernet ports to allow them [to] function as a switch in an event where there is only one Ethernet RJ-45 wall socket for uplink. One port from the AP can serve as [an] uplink, and the other port can serve as [a] downlink to another device like laptops, phones, or even another AP or switch. Aruba IAP 225 and IAP 535 can handle this very well.
• Cisco's [Aironet Access Points] GUI is very poor in terms of look-and-feel, and usability.
• Compared to Aruba APs, a cluster of autonomous Cisco [Aironet Access Points] should be able to function together in such a way that one of the APs can be the virtual controller to manage the other APs in the same cluster.

Incentivized

• Configuring wireless settings is very confusing because various settings are scattered all over the interface in different tabs
• Lots of settings use Cisco's technical verbiage rather than common phrasing, so it's confusing what a lot of settings will do and requires researching the meaning before modifying the setting
• The interface could be easier to use to do simple tasks such as reboot an access point

Incentivized

If Cisco keeps innovating the feature sets on the next 1800 models, I would definitely try it out to improve the experience of my users and to keep them on the latest technologies

Incentivized

Although it is a very good product, support is easy and can manage by Level 1 support persons and downtime is too much less but still there is a cost factor matters which is consider by each organization. Furthermore, organizations also compare with other competitors so it is hard to pursue and defend the high prices.

Incentivized

Pretty straightforward guide, which was built since OEAP600 AP's and never improved, this is a good thing for user to tackle when they configure the personal SSID, but does not reflect how it should be in 2020, where everything is mobile compatible and app ready. Cisco are going to have an app for this, but it comes with greater cost.

Incentivized

As I said before, the only thing we miss in our old model is the fact that the management interface never received an improvement in design. It has the same look and feels since it was launched. It's not that it's hard to use. It's just the case of could be modernized.

Incentivized

Downtime fear is the first fear which IT persons look and want to eliminate as much as they can but eventually you have to face it as nothing is perfect. Cisco Wireless Lan controller are feasible to use and easy to manage and other than this their issue reported are pretty low so you can get the best up time. now it also depends on scenario as well as environment.

Incentivized

I like the performance of the Cisco 1850 Access Point because it supports [a] high density of clients connected at the same time and has no performance dredging. It is a device with great construction, good antennas, good chipset that has intelligence and supports diversities and environments with [a] high user density.

Incentivized

Cisco Wireless Lan controller are feasible to use and easy to manage and other than this their issue reported are pretty low so you get the better uptime. if your get the uptime then it means its a stable product in your environment. Product performance also depends on the product management and Cisco Wireless Lan controller management is easy so you can get the great output.

Incentivized

If you are able to identify the problem initially, you would be able to explain it to the TAC. In order for the TAC to understand it, the TAC engineer must be competent enough to understand it, and have the devices already in lab to test with. Each bug I encountered the TAC was able to help. And I was able to file at least 3 bugs on the 1815T and M.

Incentivized

As usual, the support from Cisco's TAC (Technical Assistance Center) is lacking. Granted, they always get the job done, but the amount of lead time on a non-emergency is enough to make you just handle it yourself. The good news is that if you ask for Cisco's assistance and forget about it, they'll jump on by the time you've forgotten where you were in troubleshooting it and have it fixed for you.

Incentivized

Originally, when we deployed our first controller it was on a very limited basis. We only deployed it to our administration building and our High School. It was pretty straight forward. Because this was new to us we leaned heavily on our Cisco partner to assist us. With our last upgrade, we upgraded the controllers, added redundancy and expanded the building count along with new SSID's and restrictions. It went much easier, but again, we did rely on Cisco TAC and our partner to clarify and assist as needed. Having already been familiar with the product help tremendously.

Incentivized

Cisco's durability and ease of enforcing wireless access security policies with its CleanAir technology, and despite its cost, allowed us to go with Cisco Aironet Access Points. Also, configuring Cisco Autonomous APs via CLI was more straightforward to do than configuring Ubiquiti APs. And Cisco has more documentation online to read from than most other vendors.

Incentivized

Not sure why "Ruckus WLAN controllers" is not listed above but that is another major WLAN controller solution I've used in the past. Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers provide the most flexibility when it comes to designing a large WLAN deployment. They also have some of the best reliability and TAC support out of all of the other vendors.

Incentivized

For small to Medium deployments the Cisco Aironet 1800 series provide good scalability, but caps out at 50 Access Points on the Cisco Mobility Express Controller. you do have the ability to purchase a dedicated controller which will enhance the scalability and will provide better control and configuration as well as better reporting in the environment.

Incentivized

Cisco is a brand name and people trust on it. if any one thing about the networking then Cisco is among those brand which is count as trusted brand and people rely on it. Also it support is good so people can use it. Cisco Wireless Lan controller are easy to use and manage so it requires less effort.

Incentivized

• If we had it to do over, for the first time ever, we'd choose almost ANY other vendor APs over the Cisco model we have now. They have been nothing but a headache. They have cost us more in user frustration than anything else we've done in a long long time.
• If they functioned better, with better coverage space and signal strength (what Cisco actually claims), they would be great. For us, they don't.

Incentivized

• We have had our [Cisco Wireless LAN Controller] 5508s for a very long time now and although they are getting dated, they have earned us our money's worth with consistency, stability, and ease of use. Users have minimal wireless complaints and when they do seldom are they WLC-related.

Incentivized