Converged Access Wireless Architecture

[RON ROYSTON]

Am I missing something, or is Meraki clearly the best choice and value in next-generation 802.11ac wireless?  Meraki delivers control/data plane separation, wIPS, CMX, Locations Tracking, all the high end features (orderable under 2 skus, btw).

Cisco’s Converged Access solution paired with the Prime, MSE-CMX, MSE-wIPS, management overlay appears to achieve performance and feature parity with Meraki, but:

• requires the use of a 3650 or 3850 model switch to match performance and feature parity with Meraki.
• Performance parity with Meraki requires specialized Cisco 3650 or 3850 model switches, and atleast 3 servers – Prime Infrastructure, MSE-CMX, and MSE-wIPS.
• Cisco CMX functionality (Foot traffic by time of day, new vs repeat visitors, dwell time, splash/land page based on location, etc.) begins at 200 access points.
• Cisco Prime Infrastructure functionality begins at 25 access points.
• Promo bundles including features (aka management) begin at 50 access points / 10 3850 switches / $186k list. onenetwkadv

$12,490 for 10 Meraki MR32 Access Points with 5 years of service.

$85,000 for 10 Cisco 3702 Access Points with 5 years of service.  Limited features (CMX does not actually work here).  PLUS, an approx $7,500 of additional server installation services.

In other words, can you tell me why I would want to install a Cisco WLAN over a Meraki?  The Maeraki delivers the most features and has the best patented protocol / architecture for separating control and data traffic.  Or, no?  ...Right?

- Ron Royston, CCIE #6824

[RON ROYSTON]

Please help us understand why CA/CUA is preferred.  I sincerely want and need to know.  Any help is appreciated.

[Scott Fella]

CA isn't stable!  Feature parity between the two, CA is lacking many. We have had customer switch from CA to AireOS because of issues. 

-Scott

[George Stefanick]

I agree with Scoot. I wouldn't lead with CA in any of my large projects. 

[RON ROYSTON]

Scott, George, thanks for the heads up.  It sounds like CA is bleeding edge.  Good to know.

[Rasika Nayanajith]

Please help us understand why CA/CUA is preferred.  I sincerely want and need to know.  Any help is appreciated.

In my view, most of people comfortable configuring & troubleshoot Unified Access (AireOS) & keep deploying it. That architecture meets requirements of client today & Cisco is keep tweaking it to add features & avoid any bandwidth limitation going future. This centralized architecture designed prior to 802.11n & WLC did not see as bottleneck of a network that time.

That point most vendors came up with distributed architecture is the way forward. Cisco also came up with CA as they did not want lag behind to other vendors. I agree with others that CA is not up to the standard with CUA as of today (but I hope Cisco will put effort to make CA is the way forward). I (may be the only one who deployed this CA in  large scale campus environment) have deployed this CA in couple of campus buildings & going in that path to see how good this architecture & how well that integrate with CUA. Many others do not won't to be in that uncomfortable situation of managing a new architecture specially a product is a developing phase.

If it is  a greenfield deployment you can consider any of these options (including Meraki), but most customers already have Cisco infrastructure, then CA or CUA  can integrate (in the point of smooth roaming b/w these systems) that environment easily. 

Hope this gives some idea why I prefer CA/CUA over Meraki.

Rasika

[RON ROYSTON]

Does CA deliver superior roaming compared to Meraki?  Converged Access required the IOS-based controller.

[Rasika Nayanajith]

I do not think you can make roaming work between Meraki system & CUA or CA systems. But CA system works well with CUA

HTH

Rasika

[RON ROYSTON]

Do you know if one system offers desired roaming features or functionality not found in the other system?

[Scott Fella]

What you need to look at is what do you really require for a wireless system. There are pros and cons to every system, but knowing what works and doesn't work on a firmware level helps. Meraki, you don't have a choice as they will eventually push out a firmware. This is good and bad, but unlike any other vendor that lets you choose, you have consistency and Meraki support if something does break.  Roaming works fine, but again, all depends on the client devices, the access point vendor system and code versions and the placement of access points.  Having peers providing input of issues and what works and doesn't along with customer who like or dislike things, helps with choosing a recommended technology. I have AireOS, CA, Meraki all in my home lab, but I will use AireOS for stability, then Meraki and then CA. As much as I want to just use CA, I can't stand the issues I run into just at home, so why would I want to deploy it. I test bonjour and Chromecast along with mesh and roaming. Deployments I have done and my peers help decide what really works where. I work with the product team for AireOS, CA and Meraki and I like them all, but I want what works well for my customer. 

-Scott

[RON ROYSTON]

The requirement a next-generation 802.11ac wireless and CA is required for apples to apples comparison to Meraki 802.11ac MR32 AP, right?.  Without CA, Meraki wins bcs more features, faster, easier, better price, no?

How do you figure AireOS is more reliable?  I understand that the customer's Meraki WLAN continues working at 100% capacity when disconnected from Internet.

[Scott Fella]

It's all about how you design it and overalls stability.  You can go with any product as long as you know it will and can meet your requirements.  I say go for what you think will work for you stick with it. Stability is more than what happens if your internet goes down.

-Scott

[RON ROYSTON]

Rasika, actually that is not correct.  

If it is  a greenfield deployment you can consider any of these options (including Meraki), but most customers already have Cisco infrastructure, then CA or CUA  can integrate (in the point of smooth roaming b/w these systems) that environment easily. 

CA requires a rip& replace of existing wired LAN (must use specific Cisco switches).  Next-generation (802.11ac) AP's from any vendor require PoE+ which is not yet widely deployed.  So, customers will likely be doing a WiFi upgrade concurrent with a wired-LAN upgrade.

[Leo Laohoo]

AireOS, as in Airespace aquired by Cisco in '05, is based on a dead-end centralized controller based architecture, right?

Meraki, acquired by Cisco in '12, delivers the richest features and functionality in a scalable manner.  I really don't know the details of their architecture.  I understand that it is patented.

This is a useless topic.  Cisco bought out Meraki because this product will form part of a marketing niche.  Cisco Aerospace product has a particular (high-end) niche.  It's all to do with a spot in the ladder.  Cisco will never allow Meraki products to be "at par" with Aerospace.  Never.  Think of it this way:  Toyota and Lexus.  Do you see Toyota have Lexus grade technology?  Upholstery?  Drive?  Suspension?  Engine?  Differential?  No.  Lexus maybe owned by Toyota but each one fills a spot in the ladder.  

If you know what you're doing and you have the budget to show, then a number of companies prefer Aerospace.  If you have "doubts" about what benefits wifi can do (a lot of CIO still do) and/or don't have budget then Meraki can fit the budget.  

Marketing documentation needs to be taken with a ton of salt.  I don't care how many APs can Meraki cloud says the platform can support but unless you've got one set up that mimic a full blown enterprise environment, those document are as good as toilet paper to me.  

Scott Fella's response is spot-on.  It's all about reputation.  It's all about how you want to deploy and how much can you afford.   Cisco has been in the wireless market as early as 2001.  Cisco wireless product, alone, is priced very expensive because of a reason.  

Can anyone provide some specific reason why they would purchase Cisco Converged Access vs Meraki?

Any good SE can knock up an RFT that can skew to Meraki or Aerospace. Cisco Aerospace/MSE/CMX BoM is the Cadillac.   Meraki BoM is going to be so low, you'll sweep the floor with it.  Compare apples with apples and not a Lexus with a Toyota.   If you want to compare Aerospace with something "at par" then look at Aruba.  

[RON ROYSTON]

Leo, thanks for participating in the discussion.  My question/post is not useless and terms like Cadillac, Lexus, and Toyota are not helping much.

I think Scott is in agreements with me that Meraki is unconditionally better.  If you disagree please state why:

1. First valid point goes here. (Be specific, e.g., forwarding rate, feature, cost savings, anything?)

2. Second valid point goes here.

3. etc.

[Scott Fella]

I didn't say Meraki is better:)  Cisco acquired them to compete with the other cloud type vendors, especially Aruba.  Between AireOS, CA and Meraki, we implement mostly AireOS, Meraki then CA. 

-Scott