F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

We use it for load balancing and routing.

It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware.

It integrates with various firewall and networking devices along with application services, and it works fine.

• Routing
• Load balancing

• Cloud native integration should be provided.
• Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing.

The stability is great. We put our production load on it, which is very stressful.

Scalability has been great. We have thousands of severs. F5 has scaled very well.

They provide average enterprise technical support.

I also evaluated Cisco, but chose F5 because it had better features in terms of load balancing. I liked the various features in F5, including input/output routing, load balancing, and global load balancing.

Explore the API support and integration with the open source products. Those are the key thing to analyze. F5 are the experts in their area.

I use the on-premise version.

We are a solution provider and we work with a lot of products from F5.

In our internal network, we use F5 BIG-IP. We also have a few implementations with this product, including some that are integrated with other solutions such as IBM Guardium. 

One of the great use cases is capturing an application user through F5 and then pushing it to Guardium. This is very useful for our customers because they can then connect to the database with a real application user, which is something that is very hard to achieve through other vendors.

The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium. 

This product is very user-friendly, which is good for customers who have an implementation done by a partner but want to handle administration in-house.

All of the functionality can be achieved from one console.

Even on Hyper-V or a VMware appliance, the performance is very good when you use it as a proxy or a web application.

The documentation is very good.

We have been working with F5 BIG-IP for between three and four years.

This is a stable product.

From our perspective, it is scalable.

We have all of the help and support that we need from the F5 office in this region.

Technical support from F5 is very good. As a partner, I have had a very good experience with them. They have shared knowledge with us and support us in our projects, which is definitely a big plus.

It is very easy to install, especially when doing so to VMware. For example, we have spent almost a day installing security tools by other vendors. For BIG-IP, we need only two or three hours to complete it.

For the complete deployment that includes implementation and configuration, it takes between 10 and 15 days. The length of time depends on the client's goals and requirements. For example, some just want to use it as a web application firewall, whereas others want to use more functionality. The more functionality there is, the more time it takes to complete.

Our in-house team implements and deploys this solution to our customers. 

You need two or three people, including a security manager who will configure all of the rules and policies.

The price should be reduced because it is expensive when compared to the competition. Alternatively, bundled packages should be offered. This is an issue that shows up for most of our customers.

In summary, this is a very good product and we are actively suggesting it to our customers. It is something that should be more present in our market, especially because of the functionality that it provides.

In the end, we get very good results from BIG-IP.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for ADC (Application Delivery Controller) and SSL VPN prospectively worked for the PoC.

This solution is very good and the product stability is excellent.

It has very good production for SMB protocol.

I found the most valuable feature to be the SSL VPN.

The license terms for "non-commercial" are challenging for us. 

• Great load balancing
• Solid OS
• Great support

Far superior to DNS Round-Robin load balancing; great HTTP and HTTPs redirection.

Fixing bugs.

About 11 years, I believe.

Older OS releases may have had some bugs (active/active on reboot, I think we saw on one OS version). Very stable OS over all. We had one issue on our upgrade to 11.x where I had to engage F5 support. But they resolved it.

No.

Excellent.

No.

Pretty straightforward. The first generation of Big-IP we had, we did a crossover heartbeat cable, but our current one just uses a switched network.

Great product for the money. But they can get really expensive, so get what meets your needs. They do have some expensive extras like GTM, which has both hardware and licensing costs for multiple datacenters.

Citrix, NetScaler.

Check with your IT staff and developers and agree on your needs, and buy accordingly. VM instances are now also available. They don’t have an end-to-end analytics package yet (supposedly in development), to troubleshoot users' experience to the back end nodes. (Citrix offers a product called MAS).

Mostly I support my clients in relation to the product.

I am very satisfied with the product overall. 

There is never a big number of false positives or false negatives. That's the most valuable aspect of the product. 

The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system.

The user interface and GUI are very good.

I find the product to be very stable. I've supported customers for two years and haven't really had an issue with the solution.

I can't say that there are any features missing. I've overall been quite happy with it.

We once had an issue related to trying to publish some exchange application to a file and we experienced some problems there, however, the incident was not really related to BIG-IP. It was likely some kind of infrastructure problem the company was experiencing.

We haven't had any big problems of note.

Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future.

The pricing could be more reasonable.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point. 

The solution is extremely stable. We haven't had an issue in years. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. It's reliable.

Most of our clients are medium-sized entities.

For the one customer I typically deal with, there has been no need to scale or expand services. The product can be scaled by adding more licenses if necessary. That said, our clients have everything they need and have not actually done this. 

There are also add-ons that come from the ASM if a company is interested in that.

Technical support is slow and it could be faster. I had one issue once that was not very serious as it was on the Disaster Recovery Site. We were able to pull a previous version from a snapshot. However, the issue was that I was able to solve the problem myself before I even heard back from technical support. If they knew their technology, how is it that I could solve the problem faster as a person that's not as familiar with it? They need to be much faster. It could have been a much bigger problem. 

I'd say, overall, we aren't satisfied with the technical support for that reason.

I did not previously use a different product. This is my first Application Delivery Consult Solution.

The initial setup is very complex. The basic setup may be fine, however, right now I'm trying to do something in my lab environment. We've tried a few things over the years and it hasn't gotten any easier.

The costs could be lower. In a report, we found that Citrix Solutions are somehow cheaper - including in relation to encryption licensing. I cannot compare as I haven't spoken to Citrix. I don't know if it's easier or has the same (or more features). That said, I wouldn't describe this product as cheap. 

We're currently comparing F5 to Citrix. I'm not currently working with Citrix; I'm curious to see how they compare to each other. I had a presentation to a client and they just wanted some sort of comparison, which is why I began to look at Citrix.

We are resellers.

I'm a System Integrator. I have experience in virtual environments and with clients. I have some moderate experience with implementation and some bigger experience in supporting this product. I'm not an expert in the field, however, I'm trying to be.

I don't have any issues with the solution. It's pretty problem-free in general. Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

We use it as an LTM and as a reverse proxy to publish web services.

It helps us recognize sessions from certain IPs that are authorized to manage the application. This is a function we haven't found anywhere else.

The most helpful thing is that it's open-source. It's very easy to program and customize.

Logging is a bit of a problem. Logging and monitoring are only in plain text. You have to search and you have to know what you are searching for to find anything. So of course, monitoring and getting alerts for abnormal situations is hard. There are no tools for monitoring and alerts. If you have problems and you need to diagnose them, you really have to know what you're looking for in order to find it.

Logging and monitoring could be something out-of-the-box that are more accessible.

Stability is one of the advantages. It's very stable.

We haven't bumped into scalability issues. The limitation is actually through licensing. Throughput is limited by licensing. We had an error with the license and we reached the limit but we fixed that. But there has never been trouble with the capacity or scalability.

I have never used technical support directly. I use F5 through integration services and there were a few times they didn't know how to resolve an issue and they had to turn to support. But there were answers every time.

We used Microsoft Gateway called CMG. This product was end-of-life, they decided to kill the product. We switched because there is no other solution that does the same thing.

It was complex compared to the Microsoft system. But after we learned the product and understood how it works, it worked seamlessly.

We only use a fraction of the capabilities of F5. There are different modules that we have heard others speak highly of, but we don't want to use them locally. It's an on-premise server. For example, there is a WAF (web application firewall) model and others that we don't use. 

It's not a cheap product, but there are no other replacements for what we do with it.

We checked other options, but nothing could deliver the solution we need.

I would advise excessive testing before moving to production. It's a new product, it's a "language." You have to learn the product thoroughly before you really can implement it.

iRules are so helpful in meeting our complex application’s architecture in case of routing. The requests have to be routed according to the cookies and headers of the host name itself. And also we can log the details, which helps us a lot in troubleshooting.

Using the “repeat” option when creating multiple virtual servers, we are able to create as many virtual IPs as we can as we go. This reduces a lot of configuration time.

My organization has various kinds of routing requirements and we have achieved it using F5’s iRules. Also with different load balancing options, many applications have benefited a lot.

Active-Standby sync has to be made automatic.

All of the F5 boxes have an Active-Standby configuration. Users need to make changes in the Active box, but often users by mistake make changes in the Standby box. This creates problems when syncing between Active and Standby. There should be some indication from the F5 tool to avoid such mistakes.

I have used it for the past year.

All of the support I require is available on the internet.

The BigIP F5 tool is applicable to all types of infrastructure. I would recommend this tool to others.

We use the solution as a proxy to our websites, load balancing all our servers as clients come onto our website and use our services. Our website provides around 15 different services. We are customers of F5 and I'm a solutions architect for telecom and network infrastructure.

The load balancing aspect is valuable to us. 

We use a limited amount of features so the biggest issue for us is the price. For what we're using, it's an expensive solution. 

We've been using this solution for 12 years. 

The solution is very stable and scales easily. Our networking team deals with the maintenance.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We had external help for implementation and I believe deployment took about two days. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10.