The Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points includes the 9115 and 9117, and designed to meet high demand network access.
N/A
Extreme Wireless Access Points
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Extreme Networks' Wireless Access Points (or ExtremeWireless) are designed to provide performance in the most demanding environments with the latest Wi-Fi technologies including 6 GHz, OFDMA, MU-MIMO, and software-defined dual 6 GHz radios.
Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points support more standards and are easier to configure than Ubiquiti APs. Ubiquiti APs also have some strange quirks or bugs if wired connection is lost.
We have knowledge that Cisco APs will fit our necessities. A very good range of options and configuration that help to IT Team to setup the network. The use of the new Wifi 6 technlogy is also other fact to select this brand. The users will have devices that will use wifi 6 …
So that's our company policy to go with the standard products. We have tried a couple of other vendors, but we didn't actually get a proper alignment with our requirements. So Cisco actually passed our standard requirement. So that's the reason why we go with Cisco. And also I …
Well, it's a very different product. One's wired, one's wireless, but they work well together. The MG ports on the Catalyst switches allow the 9100 series APs to run at 5 gig wired speeds for the backhaul.
We are migrating from Aironet platform to Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points. That's more flexible, and we do it to sync switching, SDWAN, and wifi under one family.
Of all the different APs that I have implemented the Cisco APs are still the most feature rich. The analytics that they provide sets them apart from all other vendors I have tested.
Nothing compares to Cisco APs. Meraki is owned by cisco, but they are a poor mans cisco. Combined with the 9800 series controllers the 9000 series aps are unbeatable. i would recommend them to anyone, because they are easy to set up and are secure. they broadcast a long way and …
Aerohive wireless stacks up well with other vendors listed when it comes to centralized management. Being one of the first vendors to offer web-based management, I feel that they had the lead in that area, but lost it to the likes of Meraki and other solutions.
The Aerohive wireless devices are comparable to Cisco's wireless solution, in regard to performance, features, and management. But the cost of utilizing Cisco Wireless Access Points versus using the Aerohive access points is staggering. Since our wireless access points do not …
Aerohive is an amazing product. Cisco wasn't able to stack up when it comes to controller redundancy, backup, etc. No need to have special software to just have a secondary controller... which drives down the cost.
Aerohive's only meaningful competitor is Meraki; I'd say Aerohive/Meraki is 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other. You honestly can't go wrong with either, but I do not regret choosing Aerohive!
I've used both Aruba and Cisco (traditional, not Meraki) for wireless, and each have their own strengths. Aruba offers a lot of feature functionality, though the interface is difficult and confusing to use (this was ~4 years ago). Cisco wireless is fairly straightforward to …
We are running Ubiquiti APs for a separate network need in one of our buildings - which we are also happy with. But the difference between Ubiquiti and ExtremeWireless is vast - I cannot find most of the settings I'm used to seeing with ExtremeWireless in the Ubiquiti GUI. That …
It's been a few years since I evaluated other wireless access points from other manufacturers. However, from the different webinars I have seen of their competitors, I believe Extreme Wireless Access Points is just as good as HP Aruba access points, Meraki, etc.
Well suited in the sense that we use wireless on wheels devices a lot, having devices to monitor the patient's room to room. So this is a very useful, actually, it helps us to transmit the data through the wireless infrastructure. And I don't see, it's less because the WIFI is everywhere, it's very vital part of our life, so I can't say any shortcoming, so it's less useful
The Extreme access point solution has been used in the cooperative scenario with VLANs for employees in access through 802.1x authentication and also for guests through the captive portal that allows access of people for a limited time and prior registration. The equipment has great performance and connection speed and supports a high density of users connected at the same time without lag and crashes. The management of this equipment is being carried out through software with cloud management and is accessed by our infrastructure team to configure and monitor alerts.
Ease of use and Management. The process of implementing APs is straight forward and managing the wireless infrastructure is quite simple and efficient.
Coverage: we are very happy with the distance each AP coverages in our warehouses without having any drop issues or over implementing APs.
Cost competitive versus other cloud managed wi-fi solutions such as Cisco, Aruba or Mist.
We use WiNG still for our WAP's, which is ok to do administrative tasks from, but it could be better. However, Extreme Wireless Access Points is moving everything to CloudIQ, which is better in every way and something we plan to move to soon.
The logo on the access points makes you want to mount the AP's sideways like a diamond because otherwise the logo looks crooked, and that just looks bad, so you have to take extra time sometimes, depending on the mount, to get the AP to look square.
The Cisco Catalyst 9120 Access Points have been a solid deployment for me. Using their interface is a mix of new and old. They run IOS, so if you know the CLI, you can easily navigate around them. You can join them to an older controller if it supports a certain version, you can join it to a new 9800 controller--very straight forward--and you can run the embedded wireless controller on them directly. I've found this to be very useful at smaller sites. The Cisco Catalyst 9120 Access Points are not limited to feature sets like the older generations' mobility express platform.
Extreme Wireless Access Points are easy to manage. They are easy to deploy and install. The hardware and firmware are reliable. There a number of things to be improved since we are still using the WiNG platform, but all of those things will be much better when we migrate to CloudIQ.
Cisco is providing the best in class access points. We would be focusing Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points to have the common platform. We are waiting for cloud implementation on DNA or cloud monitoring of 9800cl in Meraki dashboard. It's reliable, tagging gives a lot of flexibility. Virtualization finally works as expected.
Extreme Wireless Access Points can support all our devices, even in high capacity areas. They are easy to manage and get basic information. There was a time back around 2017-2018 where people's devices needed to make sure they were using the latest wireless drivers; otherwise, people were having connection issues. Other than that time period, we were able to have fewer complaints from end users.
Cisco has been very good at correcting early issues with their code. Their TAC support has been fantastic when I would open a case with issues I was facing. Even though the hardware was new, they were very familiar with the interfaces and issues I was having. In the past I've been concerned about adopting a new product right away because of support issues. That was not the case here. Once I had the deployment up and running, they have had a good run of reliability.
Support was always responsive and willing to help, but at times did not know when to call it and send a replacement to stop the bleeding. I respect that fact that they wanted to get the solution working, and the wanting to learn more and understand, but at times you cant do that at the expense of the customer.
Previously we used 3800 series access points within our infrastructure. These access points have been supported within the 9800 wireless controller and are currently being used still as we work to replace access points in the near future. These access points have provided excellent service but the newer access points are much better and provide additional services.
We are running Ubiquiti APs for a separate network need in one of our buildings - which we are also happy with. But the difference between Ubiquiti and ExtremeWireless is vast - I cannot find most of the settings I'm used to seeing with ExtremeWireless in the Ubiquiti GUI. That said - you pay for what you get. ExtremeWireless is about 5x the cost per AP than Ubiquiti is. The reliability of uptime with the hardware, as well as the cloud service from ExtremeWireless, has been fantastic to utilize.
These access points offer flexibility in deployment scenarios, supporting both standalone and controller-based architectures. Organisations can choose the model that best suits their current needs and scale as their requirements grow. Cisco Aironet Access Points are compatible with Cisco's Wireless LAN controllers, allowing for centralized management and monitoring of a large number of access points across the network. With the recent changes, it will even support cloud base controllers.
I'd say overall positive impact replacing some of our older model APs. These are much more stable. Some of the older models that we're getting rid of needed to be rebooted. Sometimes they would just stop working different bugs and things like that in their software or hardware. These, I have to say, so far they've been much more stable. They've been definitely a positive impact on our environment for wireless.
Initial expense is high due to pricey hardware, though recurring costs make the ROI better over the long term.
Remote access is fairly simple and we can deploy entire home setups or even small offices very quickly. This is provides good ROI to get the business moving quickly.
