F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

We use it primarily for WAF.

The ability to quickly set up. I understood it very quickly. I had some URLs which pointed to my load balancers, and inside there, I had to send an action to the API Gateway. I thought it was going to be a very complex thing for me to do, but that one rule that I had to create, it solved everything for me.

The connection through the API Gateway worked in no time, which was fantastic. From the perspective of us building it, once you have that one rule you can stamp it out. Also, it was easy for me to show operations, "Look how easy it is. There's nothing complex about it." 

• iRules
• Simplicity

I was able to simply and quickly set up the WAF rules and security, and also set up easily complex policies and rules which gave me some great features to redirect. So, I had to integrate API Gateway into our WAF, because we're a healthcare company, and we have to maintain security. Therefore, they didn't want to have public endpoints that had not been inspected. The policy features inside the WAF rules were really easy for me to set up. What I thought was going to take me two months, I had done in about two weeks. Between Googling and F5 having great information, so instead of using traditional iRules, I used a policy thing that they recommended. It was much simpler and cleaner, and seemed to execute faster. It was a great feature.

The configuration and implementation of what I thought I was going to have to do was a lot simpler than I expected it to be. That was a plus.

People love them in security, but their costs are completely out of bounds. However, I'm not a security guy, so I don't necessarily know all the ins and outs of why our security team may have chosen this product versus other ones.

I am disappointed with the additional cost. 25 megabytes is low. If we get to a thousand, a gig, It is like three dollars an hour. While you can get a reduction in price, when I price them against anyone else, they are wildly overpriced.

I used GitHub for autoscaling CloudFormation, and I found two bugs and I submitted them. Their implementation in GitHub could be cleaner and allow for a bit more customization. We always end up customizing these things, so I found two bugs and I thought they were big bugs so I was surprised. This wasn't necessarily relative to product. It was more about the support role of GitHub and the way it was launching. However, the features that they said would work, did not.

It seems very stable. I've had no problems with stability at all. It's been rock solid, from the perspective of staying in line and working as expected.

I did individual testing. We were doing very small tests to start, 25 megabits. So, I was driving close to 25 megabits through it. Memory and CPU, I thought might be a bit of a concern, but overall it seemed good. It was doing what I needed it to do, and doing it well, so I didn't notice anything in my traffic.

I haven't thought of production workloads on it yet. I don't know how the performance is going to be in terms of CPU memory, but I was told by other people because of what we're doing on it, it could be hard to scale. So, we may have to end up buying more because we will be encrypting and decrypting. We have to inspect that traffic, so that will be CPU intensive. Therefore, one instance may not be enough for us, as we may be spinning up multiples across Multi-AZs.

We will be just stacking our costs. Granted, it is virtualization, and you can only get so much out of it. However, I haven't put true production workloads through it. I have only done my testing, and I am concerned a bit about these factors and how they may drive our costs even more, because I will have to spin up more WAFs to accommodate for high CPU and memory loads.

From a cost perspective, I agreed to analyze the standards in terms of load balancing. However, the cost that they have with AWS are almost prohibitive. I'm being forced to use F5 WAF. I would not simply use it based on cost. I agree that they have some great features, but for me, cost is key in terms of AWS. 

This applies to buying in the AWS Marketplace. If you go to a simple WAF doing 25 megabits, and I'm paying for the instance cost as well, it is over a dollar an hour. You can add that up and ask for some discounts, but relative to other players, they are significantly more expensive.

We will need a lot of these, and it can be a real negative driver in terms of spend and how we will be able to move forward.

Purchasing though the AWS Marketplace was easy; it was a piece of cake. You go right in, and the options are there. It was nice you can pick the different kind of group you wanted and what type of security you wanted. It did put in a lot of information that would build a lot of the initial infrastructure for me in terms of supporting my load balancer and creating security. Granted, I destroyed it all, but it was nice and it was there. It gave me the ability to level set what I should create versus what they put in place. I could see what they're doing here and I can match it to my own criteria. What they put in the AWS Marketplace and came through with the license, it worked well.

We chose to go through the AWS Marketplace because you can do almost anything you are going to launch there. The first time you launch, you always grab from the market, particularly for PoCs, as it's just easier. There's no reason why I wouldn't go through the AWS Marketplace, because they've already have F5 WAF. It's exactly what I want and it's exactly what I needed, so I can go from there.

I am a fan of using AWS natively. It is much cheaper.

We also looked at Check Point and Barracuda, but they were not markedly cheaper. The whole reason to use AWS was its ability to create resources which have more economic scale. This has almost started to get lost with the prices that these companies are charging.

I started my PoC back in April, which is when  I finished three PoCs across different deployments for F5. So, I'd probably been using the product for about eight months.

The product works.

We have F5 all across our environment. We use them for both VPNs and for traditional load balancers. So, we have VIPRIONs and several different versions of on-premise F5 hardware, as well. From an operations team perspective, everything is easy to learn; seamless. The ability to get teams to focus on AWS F5 is easy because they already know everything there. From an operational perspective, it is a win-win because they already know how to work with the F5.

Within our AWS environment, it is integrated with network load balancers. Then, depending on the traffic flow, it can either be back-end through the Palo Alto IDS IPS or it can be front-end for the IDS IPS. So, it has integration in between there, which was very nice. I was able to set up very intricate NAT rules, because I had to handle the traffic away. It did work very well. There were some issues with the routing, but that was more how AWS routes rather than F5 which I had to work around. Other than that, getting traffic back and forth between the two and the network load balancing was a piece of cake.

We're offering services to citizens who access them over the internet, and we use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for load balancing between many physical servers or backend servers.

I like that F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a product that comes with valuable features, but what stands out from all features is load balancing.

An area for improvement in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is troubleshooting on the command line, which should be more graphical.

Another area for improvement is that it's a high-priced product.

What I want to see in the product's next release is more analytics.

I've worked with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for about five years, and I'm still using the solution.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is stable, so I'm rating it nine out of ten.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a scalable product, but my company has yet to try scaling it because there's no need.

The technical support for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is responsive. F5 has a beneficial knowledge base that allows my team to solve many problems by consulting the knowledge base.

I'd rate support eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) was straightforward, so I'd rate its setup as nine out of ten.

It took a few days to deploy F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) because the company had a lot of applications.

My company set up the hardware, configured the network parameters, then tested the product on one application before applying it to all applications.

We used a consultant to deploy F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

I found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) an expensive product. The costs would depend on the appliance and infrastructure size. However, my company didn't have to pay extra to use additional features.

As F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is very pricey, I'd rate its pricing as two out of ten.

I'm working with ADC products, particularly with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

A total of five people deployed F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for my company. Three were internal, in particular, engineers, and two were consultants.

The solution requires maintenance when my company has a new application to publish and when, at times, there's a need to reset the backend configuration.

My company has many F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) users, with four people in charge of the administration and management of the product, though there's a plan to replace it because it will be EOL. The company is still prospecting and looking for alternatives, such as Barracuda or Fortinet.

I'd tell anyone looking to implement F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) that it's a good product, but its only problem is pricing.

My F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) rating is eight out of ten.

My company is a customer.

I use F5 BIG-IP LTM to balance the load across multiple servers hosting a website or web application, ensuring none get overwhelmed. It is handy for ensuring that services like my email server or database stay available and responsive, even if one server goes down. Plus, it is not just for web traffic; it can manage traffic for any TCP or UDP-based service, like FTP or SIP.

The value and impact of using F5 BIG-IP LTM for application delivery control in our organization are significant. It ensures the availability, stability, and reliability of our applications, ultimately contributing to smooth operations and enhanced user experience.

One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side. Lowering costs could make the solution more accessible to a wider range of organizations.

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager for about six years.

It is a stable solution.

F5 BIG-IP LTM is a scalable solution, especially when deployed as a virtual machine. You can increase resources and licenses as needed, providing flexibility for growth. However, with physical appliances, scalability may be limited by hardware and license constraints.

The technical support is excellent.

Setting up F5 BIG-IP LTM is generally straightforward. In a Windows environment, initial setup might take around thirty minutes, with additional time depending on specific needs and applications. The deployment process involves configuring nodes and tools for each server and application and setting up load balancing. Additional features like compression and caching profiles can be configured as needed. Once configured, it is typically self-loading, making ongoing management easier.

The initial investment in F5 BIG-IP LTM has been worthwhile for our organization.

The licensing cost for F5 BIG-IP LTM is typically on a yearly basis, with options for one-year or three-year terms. It is quite expensive.

In our organization, we use F5 BIG-IP LTM for local balancing and traffic management. It helps us evenly distribute incoming traffic across our servers, ensuring our applications like Tobe and DNS run smoothly. Plus, it handles traffic for other services, like STV, effectively managing our network flow.

F5 BIG-IP LTM has been crucial in enhancing application delivery and optimizing network traffic. Its robust features ensure that applications are delivered efficiently and reliably. From load balancing to SSL offloading, it handles tasks seamlessly, making applications run smoothly.

The features of F5 BIG-IP LTM that are most crucial for ensuring high availability, performance, and application optimization are its load balancing capabilities, SSL offloading, and traffic acceleration through compression.

The security capabilities of F5 BIG-IP LTM, such as SSL offloading and firewall services, are extremely valuable to us. 

As a system administrator, I find the F5 BIG-IP LTM interface very user-friendly and intuitive. It simplifies complex tasks, making management easier. Compared to other vendors, it stands out for its ease of use. Plus, its analytics features streamline monitoring and decision-making.

My advice to new users is that if you are considering using F5 BIG-IP LTM for application delivery control and firewall capabilities, I would advise starting with a clear understanding of your organization's needs and objectives. Evaluate how F5 BIG-IP LTM aligns with your requirements, considering factors like scalability, performance, and security features. Additionally, explore alternative solutions like F5 ASM or FortiWeb to ensure you choose the best fit for your specific use case.

Overall, I would rate F5 BIG-IP LTM as a nine out of ten.

F5 Big-IP Local Traffic Manager has multiple use cases that serve as both layer 3 and layer 7 load balancers. It places a very important rule in the microservices environment and functions as an ingress controller for microservices.

F5 Big-IP Local Traffic Manager has better modular features especially LTM, which according to the clients, is very beneficial. Most of the users opt for a combination of big IP LTM and WAF which helps them to leverage application load balancing and enhance application security many-fold. 

There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions. The existing code, which dates back almost two decades is being evaluated and there are plans formulated for the new modular version. However, I believe that the transition to a new modular, design should make the application more agile, lighter, and conducive.

I have been sing F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager, since my experience in the sales team which is almost 2.5 years. 

It is a stable solution and I would rate it 9 out of 10. 

The scalability of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is rated around six or seven on a scale of one to ten. The introduction of a chassis-based architecture allows for scalability by accommodating multiple blades within a chassis, providing flexibility in handling traffic. However, individual boxes have limitations, and to scale further, one might need to add switches or replace the box with a larger one.

They are responsive, but there is room for improvement in the support. The support team needs to be more adequately trained and aware of tools and cases.

Neutral

Before, I was with a company called Synovir, which deals with mobile number portability and roaming services. In the setup for mobile number portability, we had multiple servers, and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager was chosen for load balancing across various servers. I was involved in the overall solution alongside F5.

The initial setup requires some training and is not to be considered easy. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate it six. It is certainly not among the simplest processes but offers flexibility and extensive configuration options. Therefore, this makes it more involved than some other load balances setups, but once deployed and monitored users almost forget about it until renewal time which indicates that the solution has stable performance even after initial complexities.

In my view, the cost is somewhat on the higher side. There are discounts available, but I wouldn't say it's overpriced. It's not cheap either, and the value for money is a bit higher from that perspective.

I would rate it 8 out of 10.

In the last two years, the F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager implementations for a client had pointers, primarily ones pointing inwards to the onsite cloud-type systems, but they also did have pointers to some cloud-service-based instances as well. So it was actually doing a bit of hybrid. 

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager has improved the load balancing systems of organizations I've worked for in the past. 

The F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager features I find the most valuable are the load balancing, the rest of the cell offload capabilities, and some of their security future capabilities.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is sometimes a bit cumbersome to deal with some builds, although that's gotten significantly better over the years. 

There is also room for improvement in the integration between security set features that were available on their security tools to work more seamlessly with some of their load balancing functionality. It works well, but I would personally think they could improve it. 

Simplifying the user interface would be nice to see as well. 

I started using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager probably about a decade ago. I have been using it on and off ever since. The last experience I had working with them was more from a planning perspective. Previously, I had not only done planning, architecture, and design, but the actual implementation.

I've been very impressed. Once you get it working, it's been very stable.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is scalable. That's one of the reasons I always went for it. Some of the clients I have worked with have been Fortune 100 companies with thousands and thousands of servers they needed front-ended.

Some of these sites had multiple thousands of web instances that needed to be load balanced. We were also doing both local and global load balancing. We'd use a global load balancer that would point to local load balancing that would port it out within a specific data center.

These clients had millions of end users. I believe that nearly all of those organizations ended up increasing their load balancing platform environment.

The tech support we got from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager directly was pretty good.

Before using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager, I evaluated Citrix, Cisco, and several others. No other solution ever came up to quite the specs that we were looking for in terms of flexibility, capabilities, integrations, and ease of implementation. The big battle was whether or not to go with Cisco. The product is good and it integrates well with router platforms. However, with Cisco, you lose a slot in your chassis and it's kind of expensive to lose and the solution is not as good. It is not as flexible. Of course, Cisco lost the market in the end. 

The initial F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager setup is fairly complex. Granted, I wasn't working with discrete products. I haven't worked with any of the F5 discrete units. It's all been modular chassis-based for me. That gave me a lot more flexibility because I could put multiple instances; it's a much better bang for your buck and a lot more flexibility for large architectural implementation, which is really all I've ever done with it.

The instances I've built in the past had 25 to 30 segments, each having hundreds of servers. I have not done anything small-scale. One of our migration changes alone took 45 nights. 

The deployments were primarily done in-house. I would basically order and buy it. I would come up with the architectural designs for the network, work with some of the web server folks and some of the server people, and we would come up with a list of what was needed, which was usually thousands of things. Then, I would just develop an architectural model that would use the products.

In each instance that we deployed F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager from scratch, it was a return on investment that was positive in the eyes of the clients we were working with.

The biggest advice I would give about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is: to make sure you are aware of what your options are and what your own environment is. If you are a cloud-based environment, there is not much value in the local, load balancing. You would need to go with a cloud-based type load balancing capability, whether it is based on a fixed solution, like an F5, Avi, Citrix, or one of the cloud-based platforms. But, if you are still in an in-shop environment, there is much value to deploying it locally.

Overall, in terms of performance, on a scale of one to 10, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I would give F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager an eight. 

I use the solution for load balancing.

The most valuable features of the solution are in the area of DDoS and WAF.

Price is an area of the tool where improvements are required.

I want to see CDN capabilities in the product.

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for five years. I recommend the solution to my company's customers. I am a reseller of the tool.

I am satisfied with the technical support provided for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I only work with F5, apart from a local LAN platform. I switched to F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) from another tool because I was not satisfied with it.

The tool is a bit expensive. I cannot recommend another tool in its place to those who don't find it budget-friendly.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is better than other tools as it is easy to install and configure. The tool has a good UI.

The tool's SSL offloading capabilities had no impact on our network performance.

The tool does not fit my traffic requirements.

Speaking about application security and compliance, I use the tool for all the local LANs and applications in my environment.

There is no AI in the tool.

I recommend the tool to others.

I wouldn't recommend the tool to small companies, considering its high price and the infrastructure needs of small businesses.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

Primary use case for the product is high availability and load sharing of applications to be serviced. Also, it provides application security by use of the Application Security Manager.

It has enabled us to keep a sustainable and supported load balancing platform. This is partly due to Cisco withdrawing a large number of their load balancing products and also related to Microsoft Network Load Balancing not scaling enough to suit our needs.

The most valuable feature is the F5 LTM (Local Traffic Manager). This is the part of the product most organisations will be using most. It provides the core functionality to be able to load balance services and the means and the intelligence to be able to load balance based on advanced logic, e.g., TCL scripting.

The F5 GTM/BIGIP DNS (Global Traffic Manager) is another valuable feature. This feature allows for DNS load balancing, which means that high availability and load sharing can be done across services locally, as well as across datacenters with advanced capabilities.

I would like F5 to incorporate the ability to create your own custom roles and customised permissions within the product set. I have seen many customers wanting to give a certain level of access for the purposes of out-of-hours servicing to out-of-hours staff or teams that fulfill an operations type role.

For example, I would like to see the ability to create roles within F5 where I can specify permissions instead of choosing from a set list that does not always fit my organisation’s needs. The current roles available out-of-the-box do not allow for enough granularity for an operator role to take pool resources offline and push or commit those changes to the configuration/HA cluster. Every role within the F5 that can make changes should be able to commit those changes if the administrator(s) permits.

Stability has never been an issue with F5 BIG-IP. The product is geared predominantly at providing stability and resiliency across your infrastructure.

No issues with scalability have been encountered. I would say that this has largely been due to having a good F5 consultant and consultancy throughout the buying process and implementation. This has ensured that the product being purchased can scale past our current needs and fulfill potential future needs.

I would give a 10 out of 10. Technical support through F5 is very thorough. On most occasions, the F5 DevCentral and support website generally gives you a lot of the expertise that you need without having to raise a support ticket. If you ever reach the stage of needing to raise a support ticket, you usually are handed quickly to someone who is able to deal with your query as efficiently as possible.

Previously, I have used Cisco load balancing, e.g., Cisco CSM, Cisco ACE, Microsoft Network Load Balancing, and Cisco GSS. Previously, Cisco load balancing or Microsoft NLB had always been the preferred options. However, since Cisco discontinued most of their load balancing products, it makes it very difficult to find products of the same grade and functionality. Since we began using F5 that gap in functionality has been filled. With F5, you get not just standard load balancing, but an array of other highly useful products to boot.

The licensing pricing seems relatively easy enough to get your head around. I would advise anyone to ensure that you have a conversation with an F5 consultant before purchasing, as you would with most products. An F5 consultant is the best placed to understand your needs and ensure that you purchase the correct licensing and products for your requirements.

We did evaluate other options. We had already used products such as NetScaler, Microsoft NLB, and a vast array of Cisco load balancing products. F5 was chosen due to the level of power that the product has. I have not seen many single solutions that fulfill all the criteria that an F5 BIG-IP appliance can.

It is not superior to its competitors due to how advanced the features are and the modules that can be used. The product can be used with iRules, which are an advanced ways of making functions available on a load balancer via use of scripting in TCL.

I would strongly advise seeking technical consultation throughout purchasing and during implementation. This is usually because you can get good advice around best practises as well as utilising as much of the F5 features as possible. In some cases, you might even find yourself finding a solution to scenarios that you might not have been aware had a solution.

I rated this product four and a half stars, because of the level of advanced features available in the product versus cost. Though functionality is high, its cost can be considered slightly higher than its competitors.

I used LTM to segment traffic between servers, secure them from deficient connections, and protect them from web attacks and malicious behavior.

F5 LTM supports the application delivery in high-demand scenarios.

F5 is very efficient in the services it provides, whether it's LTM or ASM. The policies and machine learning are one of a kind, efficient, and provide minimal disturbance to the servers.

From an ASM perspective, the most valuable feature was the DOS protection, SQL injection protection, bot protection, bot URLs, and many other features.

There were a lot of good features. The most beneficial for maintaining server health included the algorithms for the virtual IP, which segment traffic between servers, authentication profiles, and many other things.

The load-balancing capabilities have increased efficiency because servers can handle connection requests one at a time. There are no dropped connections, and the server health is always under the threshold.

Moreover, AI enhances LTM's performance in network management. It made it much more secure and efficient by understanding normal traffic patterns and learning the behavior of traffic within the environment. Any suspicious traffic is captured and flagged.

In the LTM solution, it would be beneficial to have more algorithms for traffic segmentation or the ability to create user-defined algorithms rather than being restricted to predefined ones.

I have experience with this product. I used it for years. 

I didn't face any issues with stability. 

It is a scalable product. In some environments that I worked on, it ranged from 1000 to 10,000 normal users. It was deployed across multiple locations with multiple deployments.

I managed LTM for scaling network resources during peak times. If I had multiple servers hosting the same servers, I could segment traffic across these servers during peak times. Rather than going to one server, the traffic can go to two or three servers to ensure fast delivery and keep the servers healthy, even during peak times.

I've used Citrix, but I didn't like it.

F5 was easier to manage and had better performance.

The initial setup was straightforward, with no trouble at all.

• Deployment process: The service I worked on followed best practices. It involved the initial configuration, management configuration, onboarding servers, creating authentication profiles, keep-alive connections, integrating with Active Directory, and applying rules.

• Deployment time: For a huge enterprise environment, it might take about a month to fully deploy it. 

Two to three resources can handle it for a large enterprise.

There is maintenance required. With appropriate training, it can be maintained and administered without any issues.

It's worth every penny. The return on investment is amazing.

It's more expensive than other load-balancing vendors.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.