highlights and lowlights of the daily business of network engineers

Download als PDF File

Purpose

This note provides a technical comparison between iMaster NCE-Campus and the Cisco products Catalyst Center (formerly DNA Center, DNAC) and ISE.

Core principle:

• iMaster NCE-Campus does not map to exactly one Cisco product.
• The closest Cisco match for the platform core is Catalyst Center.
• NAC, AAA, guest, profiling, and policy-enforcement functions are largely handled by ISE on the Cisco side.

Quick Mapping

1. Product Positioning

Technically relevant:

• NCE-Campus covers several functional areas in one platform that Cisco distributes across Catalyst Center and ISE.
• Catalyst Center is not a NAC system.
• ISE is not a full replacement for Catalyst Center; it is its identity / policy counterpart.

2. Architecture and Deployment

Technical takeaway:

• NCE-Campus is broader in deployment and operating-model coverage.
• Catalyst Center is the central campus controller in Cisco environments, but it is not a 1:1 equivalent to all NCE operating models.

3. Day-0 / Day-1 Provisioning

Technically relevant:

• NCE-Campus is strongly site- and template-based.
• Catalyst Center is also site-, intent-, and template-based, but with Cisco-specific PnP and SDA workflows.
• Huawei ESN-free is operationally useful for rollout preparation without fixed serial numbers.

4. Network Configuration / Templates / Policy

Technical takeaway:

• Both platforms support centralized configuration and template workflows.
• Cisco is strongly tied to SDA in enterprise campus designs.
• Huawei is broader across classic campus, overlay, and service-oriented configuration paths.

5. Monitoring / Assurance / Analytics

Technically relevant:

• NCE-Campus + CampusInsight provide a highly integrated model for user experience, application experience, and network health.
• Catalyst Center also provides assurance, but Cisco functions are often distributed across multiple products and licenses.
• For deep experience and cross-domain visibility, Cisco may require additional components.

6. Admission / NAC / AAA – Why ISE Must Be Separate

Technical takeaway:

• When comparing admission management, guest, AAA, policy, identity, and access control, ISE must be part of the comparison.
• Catalyst Center alone does not cover this layer.
• The clean comparison model is therefore:
  • NCE-Campus core vs Catalyst Center
  • NCE admission / policy vs ISE

7. Licensing and Product Scope

Technically relevant:

• Huawei’s operational advantage is stronger platform integration.
• Cisco’s advantage is mature specialized products, but with more architecture and operations boundaries between platforms.

8. Suggested Themes for the Overall NCE vs Cisco Comparison

For technical staff, I would structure the comparison like this:

9. Starting Point: DNAC / Catalyst Center

If we start with Catalyst Center, these are the most useful first chapters:

1. platform role and architecture
2. design / site hierarchy / provisioning
3. template and policy model
4. monitoring / assurance
5. fabric / SDA
6. boundary to ISE

Key Takeaways

• iMaster NCE-Campus is functionally broader and more integrated than Catalyst Center alone.
• Catalyst Center is the closest Cisco match for the platform core, but not for NAC / AAA.
• ISE must be included as a second Cisco product for a technically correct comparison.
• A fair comparison is not a 1:1 product comparison, but a function mapping.

Next Expansions

• Part 2: detailed comparison iMaster NCE Admission vs Cisco ISE
• Part 3: detailed comparison CampusInsight vs Catalyst Center Assurance

Samuel Heinrich

Senior Network Engineer at Selution AG (Switzerland)

Arbeitet in Raum Basel (Switzerland) als Senior Network Engineer mit über 15 Jahren Erfahrung im Bereich Netzwerk