Connect. Secure. Manage.
WAN Resilience Assessment
Review Cisco and Meraki WAN dependencies, including shared carriers, physical entry points, equipment and the paths to critical applications.
Devices supported
across the UK
Client locations
supported
Traffic handled
at peak time
Average
response time
Average response is not a resolution time or a contractual guarantee. Support scope and response commitments are agreed for each engagement.
A WAN resilience assessment checks the network you have against the faults your business needs to withstand. We compare the intended Cisco or Meraki design with provider links, settings and recovery evidence. The findings rank gaps and practical improvements. Spare devices are part of the assessment, alongside the paths and services they still depend on.
The whole path
Understand how sites, providers, cloud networks and security controls fit together.
Resilience that can be tested
Separate a second circuit from genuine end-to-end service resilience.
Provider coordination
Keep addressing, routing and escalation ownership clear across organisations.
Agree the business scenarios to assess
We start with the apps and sites that matter most, together with the consequences of interruption. Loss of one branch circuit, a central hub, an edge appliance or a wider provider service are different scenarios. The assessment identifies which ones are in scope and what the business expects to remain available in each case.
We also distinguish a resilience review from a full business-continuity exercise. The network can contribute to app recovery without controlling every dependency. The proposal states which app, identity or hosting questions need input from other teams and avoids promising conclusions that the available network evidence cannot support.
Standards & partnerships
Confidence in the team behind your network.
Cisco Partner
Cisco Meraki
Cyber Essentials
Cyber Essentials PlusMCI Network Services is operated by Proxar Ltd. Certifications apply to the certified legal entity and the scope of its certificates. View accreditation information
Reconcile diagrams with the operating estate
The review collects topology, circuit records, device information and setup relevant to the scope. We compare those sources with the live management view and agreed observations. A diagram may show two independent links while both actually pass through one provider device or local switch.
Gaps and inconsistencies are recorded rather than silently filled with assumptions. Where provider diversity information is unavailable, the report identifies the question and the party able to answer it. This gives the customer a reliable basis for supplier discussions instead of repeating an unverified claim of physical independence.
A useful starting point
Tell us what is happening.
A short description of the problem is enough for an initial discussion.
Examine common failure points
We assess circuits, building entry routes, power, edge devices, upstream switches and shared control or management services. The review looks beyond the component usually blamed for an outage. A pair of routers can still lose service through one failed electrical feed or an unavailable central authentication dependency.
Provider and cloud dependencies are considered where they affect the WAN. Two commercial services may share an underlying carrier, and separate virtual endpoints may still occupy one failure domain. The report distinguishes confirmed relationships from plausible risks that need further evidence, keeping the reasoning transparent.
Different environments. The same care.
Built around the work
your network supports.
Finance, banking and the wider private sector. We start with the systems and people that depend on your connections.
Finance & banking
Market-data paths, routing and provider coordination on clients’ behalf.
Financial-market services ↗Offices & multi-site teams
Reliable access between people, workplaces and business applications.
Office network design ↗Data centres & cloud
Network boundaries, workload connections and operational ownership.
Data centre networks ↗Review detection and path-selection behaviour
We examine how the deployed platform detects failure and selects an alternative. Interface tracking, routing protocols, VPN health and SD-WAN quality policies are assessed in their actual setup. A backup route present in the setup may not become usable under the particular fault the business expects it to cover.
Restoration behaviour is reviewed as well. Repeated changes on an unstable path can cause more disruption than a deliberate period of reduced service. We identify whether the supported settings and working procedures provide an understandable response when the preferred connection returns but is not yet dependable.
Assess degraded-state capacity and application impact
The remaining path must carry the traffic required by the recovery aim. We compare available capacity with representative demand and identify apps that may need prioritisation or restriction. Headline bandwidth alone is not enough where latency, loss or usage constraints affect the service.
We also assess changes in public addressing, security inspection and session handling. An app tied to an external allowlist may fail after an otherwise correct network switchover. The report separates restored reachability from shown app continuity, with the relevant owners involved in checking important workflows.
Use controlled tests where authorised
Testing is planned with maintenance constraints, stop conditions and recovery access. We exercise agreed faults individually and observe both failure and restoration, recording platform state and representative app results. The aim is useful evidence, not a dramatic outage demonstration that creates avoidable business risk.
Where live tests are not permitted, we use setup and design evidence with clear limitations. A tabletop review or vendor-supported feature description can inform a conclusion. But it is not presented as the same evidence as an observed production failover. Deferred tests become visible actions rather than disappearing from the acceptance record.
Prioritise improvements by the risk they address
Recommendations identify the failure scenario, affected service and practical change required. Some gaps may be corrected through setup or monitoring; others require provider diversity, capacity or a revised topology. We distinguish essential remediation from optional enhancement so the customer can make a proportionate investment decision.
The handover includes an evidence register, unresolved supplier questions and an action plan with ownership. Our WAN resilience services can implement agreed Cisco and Meraki improvements separately. Share the topology and the outages you want the network to withstand, and we can assess whether the current design supports those expectations without overstating what duplicate circuits or appliances can prove.
Technical references
- Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN design guide — Cisco / Cisco Meraki
- Direct Connect disaster recovery and resiliency — Amazon Web Services
Talk to a specialist
Need a specialist view?
Tell us what is affected, what changed and what your team has already checked. A short outline is enough to start.
+44 203 196 6566Choose option 1
sales@proxar.co.ukUK-wide service.
Most of our engineers are based in Kent, with a focus on London, Sussex, Essex and Berkshire.
Existing customers should use their agreed support and escalation channels. This form is for service enquiries, not a monitored emergency ticket.
Tell us what you need.
A short outline is enough. Please do not include passwords or sensitive network details.
Thank you. Your enquiry has been submitted.
Please check your name, email and message, then try again.
Your form session expired. Please try again.
Please wait a minute before sending another enquiry.
We could not submit your enquiry. Please call or email us instead.