Cisco vs Aruba for Wi-Fi

E Double U

CISO and network VP are trying to decide between Cisco Meraki and Aruba for a wireless solution. Cisco already has a foot in the door since we're a Cisco shop (ASAs, routers, switches), but they also find Aruba very attractive.

Hoping to get some feedback about your experiences (good/bad) with these services.

Iristheangel

I've worked with Meraki in production at my last job. We had a huge shopping center footprint and needed wireless that was easy to use and centralized management. When we started needing analytics, we had to do some hacks and use a third party for data collection but since my time there, Meraki has integrated CMX into it's offerings which is pretty awesome. Their new AC APs with bluetooth look compelling but to be fair, I haven't played around yet so I can't give a fully informed opinion on performance.

Aruba we assessed but we ultimately turned it down because their cloud offering is limited and when you start to want advanced features, you end up having to buy boxes onsite.

E Double U

Thank you Iris!

RouteMyPacket

lol..here we go.

Ok, so you are a Cisco shop. I honestly believe and from my experience that 90% of wireless networks are not designed or configured correctly, sorry that's just the hard truth. Putting up an AP and then plugging it in and joining a controller, then getting a connection is not "Wireless".

Again, with Cisco you can have seamless integration into your wired infrastructure. Prime Infrastructure being the core piece, from there you can get into NAD (Network Access Device) monitoring, Config Mgmt, Software Image Mgmt, Client monitoring and tracking, security monitoring and tracking (wIPS/Rogue Tracking/Centralized Logging and Alerting)

This ties into ISE, then you have NAM (Network Analysis Module) which provides response time comparison for your network (i.e., What is slow, the network or the server?), MSE (Mobility Services Engine) for CMX Analytics.

Again with these other vendors, they cannot provide a "solution" and in their attempts to come close they are partnering with other vendors to form a solution. Cisco simply cannot be beat in client identity, it's right there.

This is all part of a full client identity solution. If you would like more information, send me a PM

E Double U

Ruckus has just come into the discussion. Thoughts?

RouteMyPacket

E Double U wrote: »

Ruckus has just come into the discussion. Thoughts?

Yeah, cheap crap that's a point product but again I will say no more since it's a waste of my time to type out the differences and pros/cons of an Enterprise level Wireless solution versus a cheap "see I can ping the Internet, we have wireless yay" solution.

You say you are a Cisco shop? Problem is you don't know what Cisco have to offer in the Wireless space, I gave you some ideas but now you're on Ruckus. Might as well ask about Aerohive next

NOC-Ninja

Aruba is cheaper than Cisco so its attractive to Managers.
If you are Cisco shop then it would be common sense to tie it in with Cisco wireless. Tie it with Cisco Prime, ACS, MSE, WIPS and ISE (BYOD). Ive never had a problem with Cisco wireless.

Iristheangel

RouteMyPacket wrote: »

Might as well ask about Aerohive next

Aerohive? Now you're just being mean... :P

rsutton

+1 for Meraki. What is your environment like? How many users, how much interference, do you have specific requirements?

DevilWAH

I did not much Like Meraki, we had a odd situation and having a central controller that the AP's tunnel back to meant I could simplify the network across a campus.

The interface is great, and they are very easy to configure, and indeed have a lot of stuff you can do with them. I think in small to medium business they would be a great choice. But they are limited and not as adaptable as some of the more developed offerings.

Forget what vendor to go with. What do you want from the wireless? 2 AP to cover and office floor space? 400 to cover a open air stadium? Unless you know what the requirements are you haven't got a hope in hell of getting an answer on who to go with.

Its a bit like saying Family Hatchback or supercar, which one should i get. Well if its to drive the family to town then the hatchback is the one to go for, it might not have the technology or performance of the super car but it meets the requirements better.

phoeneous

RouteMyPacket wrote: »

Putting up an AP and then plugging it in and joining a controller, then getting a connection is not "Wireless".

So then what is it? Non-wired?

DevilWAH

phoeneous wrote: »

So then what is it? Non-wired?

Exactly, if thats all you need then its a perfect solution! Solutions only need to meet the business requirements. More can be a waste of resources and not meeting them is failing the business. It systems should not be a bottleneck to the business, but at the same time they should not be a resource drain with no further beneficial returns.

Zartanasaurus

If you want a cloud solution, Aruba is behind the curve. Meraki is pretty awesome. If you want to bring in a competing product for comparison, look at Aerohive.

phoeneous

DevilWAH wrote: »

Solutions only need to meet the business requirements. More can be a waste of resources

I completely disagree 100%.

DevilWAH

phoeneous wrote: »

I completely disagree 100%.

If the requirement is to provide a car to commute from A to B, then providing a mid range car is meeting the business needs. Providing a £1million super car which has high running costs and will take resources from other areas is a waste. In the same way as providing an only rust bucket that is contently breaking down.

Also the business needs are not "it works", the business needs are what is set out during the planning of the new solution. This included what functionality it should include when it is deployed, it on going costs and development. Which is why they should be carefully considered to insure that they are not "just enough to work", but a solution that delivers the best possible returns at the right cost (time and money) to the business.

Good business means you don't spend resource where you don't need to, you have a limited amount of them.

kohr-ah

For Aruba networks as stated before as long as you aren't looking at Cloud deployments I have been pretty happy with them. Otherwise I have had no issues with Cisco either but at the moment I manage about 120 Aruba 7210 controllers (Malls use them) with about 100 APs each and they have been working great. Most the commands are the same in the CLI as Cisco as well so there was small learning curve for CLI.

phoeneous

DevilWAH wrote: »

Good business means you don't spend resource where you don't need to, you have a limited amount of them.

Again, disagree. And your car analogy is hardly a fair comparison.

We just spent a little over 25k for a cloud based solution to supplement our internal ERP. Did we need it? Absolutely not, our business was running fine without it. Was it worth it? Considering our revenue has increased 2.5 million annually, I'd say yes.

You have to spend money to make money, never forget that.

DevilWAH

phoeneous wrote: »

Again, disagree. And your car analogy is hardly a fair comparison.

We just spent a little over 25k for a cloud based solution to supplement our internal ERP. Did we need it? Absolutely not, our business was running fine without it. Was it worth it? Considering our revenue has increased 2.5 million annually, I'd say yes.

You have to spend money to make money, never forget that.

if it has increased your revenue by 2.5million then there is a business case to do it, and there for it is "needed". If you had invested 25K in a cloud based solution that no one needed but you just wanted because it was "cool", and it was never used then this is a waste.

Question could you have achieved the same 2.5million with out the investment? is the goal of the business to grow? If you want to grow (that as you say you are in the business of making money), then you need to spend money to achieve this. So in fact to achieve the business goals you did need to spend this money, but why didn't you spend 50K ? or 100K? Because some one some where did the sums and decided the for returns you would get as a business, that this was the sweet point. Spending more than this would not reward the business with a significantly greater incress in revenue or would mean having to take resource from other "needed" projects.

If you do project management then you find there is always a limited budget, and if you want to carry out a project you have to put forward a business case. The guy upstairs who has the company budget will not give you money because you say "i want to do this", you have to say "the company needs this".

What you need is not what you require to stay stagnant, but what is required to meet the company goals.

E Double U

RouteMyPacket wrote: »

Yeah, cheap crap that's a point product but again I will say no more since it's a waste of my time to type out the differences and pros/cons of an Enterprise level Wireless solution versus a cheap "see I can ping the Internet, we have wireless yay" solution.

You say you are a Cisco shop? Problem is you don't know what Cisco have to offer in the Wireless space, I gave you some ideas but now you're on Ruckus. Might as well ask about Aerohive next

LOL hey if the CISO throws Aerohive in like Ruckus then I'll ask

FloOz

I have deployed the Meraki solution at my last 3 jobs and it has been nothing but seamless. So my vote is definitely going with them.