Cisco WAN Network Interface Module - expansion module - combo Gigabit SFP x 1
$1,448.59
$931.99
Mfg # NIM-1GE-CU-SFP=
CDW # 3716844
| UNSPSC 43222600
Know your gear
Bring high-density Gigabit Ethernet connectivity to your Cisco 4000 Series Integrated Services Routers with the Cisco WAN Network Interface Expansion Module. This plug-in Gigabit SFP works on Gigabit Ethernet protocol for enhanced connectivity and fast data transfer. With RJ-45 and SFP (mini-GBIC) connectors, this expansion module offers a flexible solution for your enterprise, business or data center. It is designed for the Cisco 4451-X Integrated Services Router, Cisco 4451-X Integrated Services Router Security Bundle, Cisco 4451-X Integrated Services Router Voice and Video Bundle and Cisco 4451-X Integrated Services Router Voice Security Bundle.
- 1-port Gigabit Ethernet, dual-mode GE/SFP network interface module facilitates flexible connectivity
- Designed for use with the Cisco 4451-X router for user convenience
Add to Compare
Enhance your purchase
Cisco WAN Network Interface Module - expansion module is rated
4.20 out of
5 by
11.
Rated 5 out of
5 by
reviewer1559886 from
Enhanced reliability and authentication with room for licensing improvements
What is our primary use case?
I am a solutions architect primarily dealing with networking and security matters. I recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to customers, particularly larger businesses.
What is most valuable?
Wireless assurance has significantly improved network reliability. Additionally, certificate-based authentication has been critical for my customers' operations.
What needs improvement?
There needs to be an adjustment in subscription licenses and their pricing. Buying the hardware and then managing Cisco renewals incurs a CapEx and also a yearly OpEx expense, which causes a struggle.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for a long time, approximately ten years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I'd rate the product nine out of ten for stability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The solution is scalable and adapts well to scaling needs as businesses grow.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support by Cisco is very good. We have no issues with it.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Cisco Wireless WAN can be competitive in terms of pricing but may also be a bit pricey at times. The main issue is the license renewals and subscriptions, which can be expensive.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
There are many competitors like HP with Aruba and Juniper. Huawei or other Chinese companies provide options, and Fortinet also has access points.
What other advice do I have?
I generally recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to other businesses except for small business owners due to the cost factor. They could consider other cost-effective products. It would be beneficial to see more AI integration in troubleshooting and network visibility.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Disclaimer: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:Partner
Date published: 2024-11-08T00:00:00-05:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
LalanChowdhury from
Enhances network reliability, offers device longevity and offers open authentication
How has it helped my organization?
We provide security solutions by incorporating Firepower and Cisco firewalls at the network's edge. We connect to the core firewall, then from the WLC (Wireless LAN Controller) to the APs (Access Points). To ensure security, we typically provide a separate firewall for the solution.
For secure access, we can mention WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) and WPA2. Open authentication is also possible, but it lacks encryption. We can also mention WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy). These are the key security features.
What is most valuable?
The device longevity is a factor. enhances network reliability. Specifically, the handoff feature for WAN, when a customer moves from one access point to another in a building or office, is much easier and more reliable if it's controller-based. So, in those cases, we recommend the traditional controller-based solution.
Cisco is adding AI features; they've already started in SD-WAN. But in Bangladesh, people are still new to AI. Cisco is including AI capabilities in their devices, so people are gradually adopting them. If they need AI-driven devices for industrial purposes, they can use them.
So, Cisco is forward-thinking with these features. Even though they're not being used extensively now, they may be used in the future for things like RFID or automation. That's why Cisco's solution is logical and adaptable.
What needs improvement?
As far as I can remember, there's open authentication in WLAN networks, but there might be an issue with the encryption process. Most likely, there's no encryption. If encryption could be added, that would be a feature I'd expect from the build.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with it for more than ten years.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It is scalable. For example, with a WLC (Wireless LAN Controller), users can cover a certain number of APs (Access Points).
For example, consider it supports 500 APs. You can initially deploy 100 or any number you need, and then purchase additional APs and licenses as your needs grow. So it's a scalable solution.
We consider the WLC capacity based on the future requirements, like for the next three to five years, so we can scale up the solution in the future if needed.
How are customer service and support?
The support is good as a partner or vendor. When we encounter any technical issues, we open a ticket and receive proper support from them. Customers are also happy with the support.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
For 95% of our customers, we recommend Cisco solutions. We only recommend Huawei if the customer doesn't have the budget for Cisco or if they specifically request Huawei. Otherwise, we stick with Cisco.
Cisco is more expensive than Huawei but it's not just about price. It's the customer's mindset. We position Cisco as offering a better total solution, and they usually fit within the customer's budget. If a customer prefers Huawei, we'll go with that, but otherwise, we recommend Cisco.
What was our ROI?
The purchased devices last for 10 to 15 years without any issues. They only need to renew time-based licenses if applicable. Feature-wise, they get proper connectivity and ensure data integrity throughout the connection. It's much easier to deploy Cisco for reliable connectivity.
Regarding ROI, customers invest in IT because the return is typically around 37 times the investment. We use this to convince customers and ensure they see a good ROI.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
One challenge is that with Cisco Wireless WAN, we are talking about term-based licenses. If we compare it to Meraki solutions, also from Cisco, customers are hesitant to purchase separate licenses every year. They are obligated to renew term-based licenses. It would be better if the license cost was included in the device price.
Since this is a recurring cost, some customers are not interested in devices that require yearly license updates. They prefer a plug-and-play solution where they pay for three years upfront and then only need to purchase warranty, not subscription licenses. This is especially challenging for customers with lower budgets.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We usually focus on Cisco, as it has CBS (Cisco Business Series) models that are well-received by customers. We usually position CBS or SMDC (Small and Medium-Sized Business Distribution Center) for our clients.
Now that they've introduced the 1200 and 1300 Catalyst switches, we are positioning those as well.
We work with Firepower 3100 and 5000 series, as well as the 3000 and 4000 series. In some cases, for customers with lower requirements, we also provide the 2000 series, like the 2100, 2110, and 2136 models. We also offer IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) as a solution if the customer wants it and their budget allows for it.
What other advice do I have?
Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.
We work with different Cisco products including switching, routing, wireless, and security, including firewalls. In some cases, for clients who need a total solution, we provide a comprehensive package including Cisco routing, firewall for security, wireless, collaboration tools (video conferencing and IP telephony), and even Cisco UCS servers.
Disclaimer: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:Partner
Date published: 2024-08-28T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Abraham Nanor from
Helps to deploy wireless access points throughout various locations in the building to ensure full coverage
What is our primary use case?
Our use cases mainly involve deploying wireless access points throughout various locations in the building to ensure full coverage.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable features include checking logs and performing site surveys. These capabilities ensure that we can cover almost every location in the building and troubleshoot any errors we encounter.
Regarding Cisco Wireless WAN, the most beneficial feature for enhancing network reliability is the ability to change the frequency to prevent interference on the 2.4 GHz network. Additionally, the security capabilities of Cisco Wireless WAN support our organizational needs by allowing us to connect to Cisco tech hacks for authentication and use Cisco ISE to authenticate clients onto the wireless network.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using the product for one year.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I rate the solution's scalability as nine out of ten.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I used a different solution at my previous company, and when I switched companies, I switched to Cisco Wireless WAN.
How was the initial setup?
I rate the deployment ease a nine out of ten.
What about the implementation team?
A third party helped us with the deployment.
What other advice do I have?
I would recommend the solution and rate it a nine out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.Customer
Date published: 2024-08-06T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Amimul Ehsan from
Well-developed but needs to improve the licensing part
What is our primary use case?
I use the solution in my company since it is a deep and developed solution. It is also reasonably priced. The tool is scalable.
What is most valuable?
Nothing is special about the solution.
The security features in Cisco Wireless WAN is nothing special and works as usual as the other tools , like, Cambium and Aruba.
What needs improvement?
The main issue associated with the product revolves around the licensing part and some support-related problems. The licensing area and support require improvements.
In my country, the technical support offered is not good enough. The technical engineers who can support us are not that good. There is a shortage of technical people in our country. It is difficult for us to find someone who can help us.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for four to five years. I am a customer of Cisco.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
There are some problems with the product's stability. Sometimes, it gets unstable, and I believe that it may be because of the interference from other wireless products in our environment. So, I would not say that it is Cisco's responsibility or fault.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
Across my company, we mostly use Cisco Wireless WAN with around 300 people.
My company uses the product on a daily basis.
How are customer service and support?
I rate the technical support a four out of ten.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Neutral
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
There are other networks here in our office, and I already had a Cambium solution.
How was the initial setup?
The product's initial setup phase is difficult but not too much.
The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. Cisco already has a cloud solution from Meraki, but we are not using it yet. We have plans to deploy a wireless cloud solution, Meraki.
The solution can be deployed in a few weeks to six months.
What was our ROI?
The product's benefit is good, especially since it does not hang.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Cisco is much more expensive than the other vendor solutions.
What other advice do I have?
If you have a lot of money, I suggest you go for Cisco. If you have budget constraints, then I suggest you go for Cambium.
I rate the tool a seven out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2024-07-25T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
RobertoChavez from
Provides additional security layer, practical for remote locations and easy to scale
What is our primary use case?
We have it on campus. When the users try to connect to the WAN, we have to use that for this objective, or we have to make a wireless independent Wi-Fi using Cisco Umbrella for Meraki. Those are the two cases we use.
How has it helped my organization?
It's practical because, for example, in remote locations, we use a captive portal. We try to allow users to use authentication through a username of this company. Another thing is the firewall. In the console, we have to restrict or block traffic using the portal. It's a very useful feature.
Another important thing is Cisco Umbrella for Meraki, that integration. But it's not too customizable. We have only three levels: default, basic, or moderate, but we want it to be possible to configure it more granularly. Users have different requirements, so we can't satisfy them because we only have three levels of restriction in trying to browse the Internet.
What is most valuable?
It's easy to deploy because using Cisco Meraki cloud makes it easier to deploy access points quickly. In one instance, a department asked for a Wi-Fi connection, and we were able to deploy this quickly.
What needs improvement?
Recently, we integrated Cisco Meraki with Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella. But, for example, with the integration, we don't have traffic statistics. I don't know if the provider or the partner made a mistake, but we lost the traffic statistics.
The observability of the traffic for one client was wonderful before. But after when we implemented Cisco Umbrella in all branches, Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella, the integration was not good because we lost the observability of the traffic. Because I think that Umbrella encrypted the traffic before ingressing it to Cisco Meraki. I think that's the reason we lost the observability.
Other things that we explained, for example, is the WAN asset to rate. For example, we can help a user that tells us that the Wi-Fi or the network was intermittent. So when we have to troubleshoot this issue, we can't see anything. So all is okay. However, the experience of the user was bad. We tried to use the dashboard, but the information wasn't useful. We worked to change the model of Cisco Meraki to try to help. And that solution worked. But the information in Cisco Meraki portal was not good, and it was sad.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using it for three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I don't know if it's the model of the Cisco Meraki product because we have a high density of users. Right now, I don't know if the model of the system supports a lot of users or concurrent users. So, we opted to install more access points. I think that we need more information or more help from partners to assess what model is correct for this environment.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It's very easy to scale because we can deploy other access points. I think that it's easy because the configuration, we only need the IP address. It's very easy to deploy the configuration of access points because we have to assign a profile configuration. So it's very easy.
How are customer service and support?
The partner provides the support. We only call the partner to solve the issues. I think that the partner uses Cisco if the problem is severe. So, with Cisco, we don't have contacts because the partner contacts them if they need help.
For example, the panel, when we have these problems with Wi-Fi, we ask them. So, we use the site survey, the conclusion, or the accommodation. So, in this site survey, we got the majority of the average number of issues that we have. We overcome that issue.
But, after that site survey, using the current tools in Cisco Meraki, we could not solve those issues. We need a site survey to resolve everything.
The partner mostly suggests a site survey.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Neutral
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I also have experience with Cisco Wireless, but based on Catalyst. And right now, we have Cisco Meraki, we are going to upgrade to Cisco Catalyst.
How was the initial setup?
It is pretty fast and easy to deploy. In one hour, we are able to deploy. Right now, we have branches. We have a campus or headquarters.
On each floor, we have a different VLAN. The Wi-Fi is on a different VLAN as well on all floors. So that VLAN passes through the SD-WAN. We use independent VRFs. So that VLAN only passes, they use the SD-WAN channel. However, we have problems with that implementation, for example. Right now, we have a problem because the smartphones can't connect to the Wi-Fi consistently. I don't know, but before, we didn't have that issue.
The smartphones cannot connect to the VLAN configuration that we have. But now, they can connect. So, we are trying to solve this issue right now.
The integration was hard when deploying Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco ISE. In that case, it was hard. But we tried to find alternatives to satisfy the security requirements.
What was our ROI?
There is a return on investment with the right configurations.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Cisco Meraki is cheap. Cisco Catalyst is expensive.
What other advice do I have?
Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.Customer
Date published: 2024-09-12T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
GeorgeGeorgiou2 from
Offers effective coverage for the access points and good security features
What is our primary use case?
I use it mainly to provide WAN connectivity to remote users.
What is most valuable?
Coverage for the access points is really good. This is a major drive for us to get strong signals using Cisco.
I also find the security features of Cisco Wireless are effective. Basically, I like the integration with the other vendors and native security software tools. The management UI is good.
What needs improvement?
The product can be more cost-effective. Only the cost could be more cost-effective. But, since it is more of an enterprise solution, it is not a cheap solution compared to other vendors.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using it for five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It is a scalable solution. It is very good. I would rate it a ten out of ten.
We have around a hundred in our company. We don't plan to increase the further usage for the time being.
How are customer service and support?
The customer service and support are good.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We checked Aruba. We opted for Cisco because we had more knowledge about this product and liked its scalability.
How was the initial setup?
I didn't face any challenges with the initial setup. However, it takes bit of knowledge to setup.
I would rate my experience with the initial setup a five out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy. Some effort is needed for all Cisco products.
Documentation is very effective and there is also an active community. So, it was very good.
What was our ROI?
It is cost-effective, compared to other enterprise solutions. It has improved productivity and reduced operational costs.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
What other advice do I have?
Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.
I would recommend to follow the documentation, deployment guides and validated designs. Designing the solution is very crucial.
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2024-08-02T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Akmal Rafique from
Provides reliable wireless connections across locations, but the the installation process could be easier
What is our primary use case?
We use the platform to provide seamless wireless connectivity for our company's network. We use it in the oil and gas industry to ensure strong and reliable wireless connections across our locations. The deployment is managed through a wireless controller, and we rely on the solution for both authentication and connectivity.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable features of this product are its authentication capabilities and the strong signal coverage of the access points. These features ensure reliable and secure wireless connectivity essential for our operations.
What needs improvement?
The product could be improved by making installing the operating system on access points easier. This process can be cumbersome and could benefit from a more streamlined approach.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for ten years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The product is stable. I rate the stability a nine.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Cisco Wireless WAN users from all our offices can connect through the wireless controller, effectively meeting our network demands.
I rate the scalability an eight.
How are customer service and support?
While the support services are generally good, the team can take time to get an engineer immediately for critical issues.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Neutral
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of this solution was easy. It took about one hour to deploy, and there were no significant difficulties.
What about the implementation team?
The implementation was done in-house.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The product is highly-priced. For example, an access point can cost around $1,200, which is quite expensive.
What other advice do I have?
This platform is a good technology with stable performance. However, its high cost is a significant downside. Other solutions like Aruba or Ubiquiti offer similar capabilities at a lower price point.
I rate it a seven out of ten.
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2024-08-04T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Seungho Yang from
Reliable connectivity and boosted productivity but complex structure hampers efficiency
What is our primary use case?
We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for our staff to access our system. They are using wireless connections with notebooks and connecting to the access points.
How has it helped my organization?
Cisco Wireless WAN allowed for time savings. It provides reliable connectivity for staff.
What is most valuable?
The solution is popular, and we have been using it for ten years. The scalability of the solution is okay, and we are happy with that aspect.
What needs improvement?
Cisco's complex structure was a factor that led us to consider replacing it. It is also more expensive than other alternatives. We had issues with roaming between access points, especially when moving from 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz bands.
For how long have I used the solution?
We have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for ten years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The solution is stable overall. However, there were issues with roaming that affected the stability of the connection for user devices.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability is okay, and we are happy with it.
How are customer service and support?
Support from Cisco headquarters is satisfactory, and they provide detailed reports. However, the support from Cisco Korea did not fully explain the situation to us, which led to issues in communication and understanding.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Neutral
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We are migrating from Cisco Wireless WAN to Xtream due to its complex structure and cost. Xtream offers better monitoring and detailed logs, which influenced our decision.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is not easy and requires more than one day for deployment.
What about the implementation team?
One or two engineers are sufficient for setting up, although the POC did not show the full functionality.
What was our ROI?
We have experienced a twenty percent time saving with Cisco Wireless WAN.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The licensing policy of Cisco Wireless WAN is not satisfactory, similar to other vendors. Hardware prices have decreased. That said, licensing costs seem to compensate.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We compared Cisco with other vendors and decided on Xtream due to its advantages in monitoring and detailed logging.
What other advice do I have?
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2024-10-31T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
RichardPreece from
Reliable solution supports corporate guest access while needing clearer pricing
What is our primary use case?
Our primary use case for Cisco Wireless WAN is corporate guest access. We are a hospital, so it is essential for clinical users.
What is most valuable?
The solution is reliable. It is important that the infrastructure is reliable and does not encounter frequent issues.
What needs improvement?
The price point is contentious as the licensing model seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately six years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The infrastructure does not encounter frequent issues, making it stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I rated the scalability a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very scalable.
How are customer service and support?
We require support, indicating that customer service is necessary.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
How was the initial setup?
The installation process was straightforward. We had help during the installation.
What about the implementation team?
We had professional help during the installation process.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The price point is the main challenge as it seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.
What other advice do I have?
My overall rating for the solution is eight points out of ten.
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2024-11-28T00:00:00-05:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Syed from
Cisco WAN module
It's a great product, easy to install and use.
It will allow us to connect our ISR routers to multiple ISPs.
Date published: 2018-04-18T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
reviewer963381 from
The network management system is not great, and the solution is incapable of handling a large number of access points
How has it helped my organization?
We are satisfied with the product.
What is most valuable?
The access points and controllers are good and do not give us any issues. In addition, the individual access points are good.
What needs improvement?
They recently launched the virtual wireless controller and a new CTI. Unfortunately, it is not scalable, and the performance is not good. Sometimes it hangs, and it has a slow response. We don't have a good experience and are uncomfortable with these elements.
The network management system is not great. It is incapable of handling a large number of access points. They are working on it but have not been able to fix it yet.
For how long have I used the solution?
We have been using this solution for about six years. We are using different models like the Wi-fi 5 model.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support is good because we have a contract with them. They respond whenever we have an issue.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The pricing is okay compared to other products like Aruba and Huawei. However, to be more competitive, Cisco could lower its price.
What other advice do I have?
We have a big infrastructure of about 15,000 to 20,000. So if it works fine for us, it will suit small companies with small networks. We use the controller, and it is fine. I rate this solution a five out of ten, mainly because of the network issues.
Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2023-02-15T00:00:00-05:00