3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 17, 2016
ACI is still a developing product-line. We have run into many caveats and limitations that weren't obvious during the pre-sales design sessions. While none of the issues have been show-stoppers, they have led to dozens of hours of troubleshooting and re-architecting aspects of our design to achieve our desired results.
Make sure that you do multiple in-depth design meetings with both Cisco and your prefered solution provider. Have both reiterate to you what you are trying to accomplish. Part of our issues is that both vendors made assumptions of what we were needing and didn't scope out the design correctly.
Once we work through all of the bugs and issues, I think it will put us in a more future proof position with our data center.
Configuration of the network is more complex out of the box. It is a paradigm shift in thinking for your network engineers.
Cisco should be more involved with their partners during the deployment of these types of technologies to ensure they are being scoped correctly.
If we were to start our project over, I'm unsure we would have going with Cisco ACI and instead may have stayed with a more traditional product such as the Catalyst line of switches. Some of the benefits of ACI, such as multiple independant tenants, are difficult to manage and could have been done using vRFs in a traditional switch.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Sep 21, 2016
Overall it was average experience due to Cisco personnel, not the 3rd party implementation. For the initial implementation, it went well, but after that, we had Cisco resource turnover which leads to missing upgrades and patches and a better understanding of how to best leverage it.
Closely manage, monitor and communicate often.
It did the job and still is working well now after the correction with Cisco.
Meet with the boots on the ground people to get their perspective and feedback.
Work with Cisco to make our disappointments and needs clearer and escalate in the Cisco organization.