Layer7 API Management Reviews

Previously, we don't have a security for our web or mobile applications. In a scenario where I have an application that gives APIs to everyone in the world, they can directly access that particular application. However, this allows for different types of attacks on that particular application too. This becomes a problem if a number of users access it, whether they are valid or invalid users, they will see performance issues. If a number of attacks are happening on a particular application, it goes down. So, from a security perspective, CA API Management acts like a reserve proxy.

It makes the end user feel like it is a real system. It does not show the back-end and what the API tool does. CA API management will not let people know that there is an original server running behind the tool. That is the security point of it. 

For use cases, there are databases that some people have to query on. With the help of CA API Management tool, we can give APIs to the end user, and with the help of those APIs, they can access the data instead of the database.

APIs can be developed to provide security. We can show them in one single pane of glass, such as the CA API Management API Developer Portal. It is there that we can provide the monetization for their APIs and what is happening on third-party applications, like Paytm or BookMyShow. 

Customers go to the portal and register there. It is there that they chose their APIs from a list. Based on the registration of the APIs, the customer will be charged.

Our customers will purchase these APIs and give to their application users. The functionality provided by the CA API Management tool is about the work framework, and the API Gateway also provides work functionalities. In the API Gateway, there are features called Solution Kits. These provides work protocol functionalities and the framework. 

In order to develop an API, we'll face so many problems: 

• What method we should use?
• What is the data it should return?
• If I give this API data to the browser, how will it be processed? 

There are so many problems from the perspective of designing an API. However, the CA API Management tool, along with the CA API Gateway, eliminate all our issues.

As an organization grow, you can use CA API Management for authentication purposes through the CA API Gateway. It allows for multiple identity providers with different Active Directories.

It takes an existing service, like JSON or SOAP, and converts it for use on the application (e.g., REST services).

From a security point of view, there are different types of attacks: cross-origin resource sharing, SQL injection, shell scripting, and code injection. These type of attacks can be eliminated with the help of this tool because they are built-in with rules. If I drag and drop one rule called cross-origin resource sharing to the website I want to allow it on, only that website can contact CA API Management regarding this assertion. 

For an OAuth perspective, the application needs to be registered at my API Gateway. Once the application is registered, every time a user requests access to my API Gateway, I have to capture whether it is a valid application or not. Once it is getting validated, only then will it show them the access page for the login page to the application.

Based on the method an API, we need to be able to access that particular API.

They need a workflow for the API Developer Portal, where the process only allows requests to go to the correct person.

The CA Mobile API Gateway (MAG) for mobiles has too much latency.

If an entire cluster fails, we have disaster recovery with this solution. It provides an exact replica.

Because it contains Java, the heap memory needs to be cleaned constantly or problems will occur.

For day-to-day maintenance, two people are enough staff, e.g., checking the logs.

CA API Management is okay when it comes to supporting a large number of APIs or large number of transactions. It has high availability. With the help of a load balancer, we distribute the load among all the API Gateways. In this way, we provide high-availability for all the API Gateways.

We have scaled the product out to different countries, like China and Australia.

Previously, there was only SOAP services. When you are making an API call with SOAP services, It has a lot of impact on the application by taking too much of the bandwidth. 

Now, all the users are filling our their forms in the back-end with form data into JSON, and sending the information to the REST services.

People want the REST services. There are already existing applications which are running on the SOAP services. Rather than losing their businesses, with the help of CA API management,  they can have both their REST and SOAP services in the back-end.

The initial setup is straightforward, like creating and deploying an API. Everything happens in one single loop.

If you install the CA API gateway, it takes about 15 minutes, as it is available in OVA format. If you go with the OVA format, you don't need to do much configuration. Then, it comes up in an internal MySQL database.

The API Developer Portal takes easily an hour to set up.

When we introduce the solution to a new organization, it's not a complicated process. If we describe to them how an API can reduce work in their regular life, then they can easily understand that. When we give this to the customers, they become happy.

We use two people for deployments.

CA API Management has a licensing path. If you want more features, it requires more licenses and more installation time.

Compared to other tools, like Apigee, this is the best tool that I have used.

This product is available on-premise, in the cloud, and Docker.

The most valuable features of Layer7 API Management are integration, ease of use, building APIs easily, and portal straightforward.

The overall cost of Layer7 API Management is high, they can improve it by making it less expensive. It is a stable platform, but Layer7 API vision and future are not clear

We have been using and implementing Layer7 API Management for approximately 10 years.

Layer7 API Management is a highly stable solution.

The support from Layer7 API Management could improve. We do not have a strong Latin American support. The support over the last two years has been poor. The vendor of Layer7 API Management, Broadcom, used to have approximately 500 employees here in Latin America but now they only have approximately 20.

You as customer has to find someone with a lot of experience in API Management so the users can take advantage of all the value the solution has.

The price of Layer7 API Management is too high and should be reduced. However, it is a good solution in the market.

I rate Layer7 API Management an eight out of ten.

Although a lot of features come handy, the most usable feature is that solution kits are customizable. We were able to cater to a large variety of implementation and customizations with ease.

We have developed frameworks around this product set. It provides the ability to customize and has tremendous depth.

The frameworks are configuration driven, which gives the ability to implement micro-services architecture with ease and provides DevOps agility in terms of continuous deployment, etc.

The feature set is quite diverse and community driven, which is a good avenue to promote future features into this product.

The policy manager UI shows signs of aging, but it is not a must.

Policy manager is probably built using Java SWING, it has all the features, but loses some points on the look and feel, compared to some new generation IDEs.

It would be nice to see the PM revamped and some additional features added, such as step debugging for encapsulated assertions etc.

I have been using CA API Management for five years.

We have not had any issues with stability.

We have not had any issues with scalability.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We did have a previous solution, but the lack of a feature set, only cloud-based implementations, and lack of customizations drove us towards CA.

The setup was very simple and straightforward.

It is definitely competitively priced. Working with your local AM can help you achieve a pricing level that’s suitable to your needs.

It comes with many options, so do discuss your future roadmap with a CA Solution Strategist to advise you on the proper model.

We looked at Apigee, Mashery, IBM, MuleSoft, WSO2, and others.

• The product is feature rich and can solve a myriad of use cases.
• We have noticed that building frameworks on the product set, with the help of a senior architect who drives the adoption early on, is a key. They can help create reference architecture for your organization that pays dividends in the end.
• Aim for CA certified resources or partners for a good quality solution.

Security is the most valuable feature for us. We have a lot of threat protections turned on and I think the gateway has inherent security protections for DDoS and a whole list of other security risks. We also have the ability to customize the security of each product that we're doing, which has been really helpful. 

It also provides some load-balancing features. We can choose which traffic goes to which back-end server and the gateway will help us manage all that.

I think it's protecting and exposing our internal APIs externally. We have a lot of different types of back-end technologies that use the APIs -- REST, UIs, and GUIs. So using the API product creates a single set of APIs, even though in the back-end they're much different.

The UI is very dated. I've talked to some of the development and product managers about that, and I think it's a known issue. It's early 2000's technology. We would like to see something online and a better UI that's easier to use and more intuitive.

Reporting could use some enhancements as well. We just moved to the 8.4 version from 7.1, and they've got a new reporting tool called ESM. We're just now starting to use that, so maybe that's going to provide what we need; it's to be determined.

The deployment's taken a little longer than we expected.

We're exposing probably fifty different products externally. We've got thousands of requests, probably, per hour that come through. It's a lot of batched products -- people will run a job and it's sending a lot of things. We have a lot of traffic. The gateway itself has been stable. Downtime has usually been something like the network equipment around the gateway itself, but the gateway itself has been fairly stable.

We have development test-production environments, so to get it on our infrastructure under our own management tools, there's a lot of bureaucracy. So it's not just a push-button type deal; it requires a lot of coordination, tickets, firewall changes, provisioning hardware, things like that. All that to say that the initial setup was not straightforward but rather complex.

There were several other options evaluated, but I wasn't a part of that.

I saw some things this week at CA World which I think will make the product better, more intuitive to use with a better interface and easier deployment. There are things I saw on the road map that they'll address in the near future.

I would advice that someone go through the self-training before just jumping in. I learned from co-workers as well.

We use it primary for API management in my data center, for mobile applications and application-to-application integration.

It has improved API governance, gives analytics to API performance, and provided abstraction to the solution providers.

• Policy assertion
• Policy manager
• SSO
• Authentication
• HA features
• Analytics
• Very extension logs

• Better GUI for the policy manager.
• Needs better professional services in my country. 
• Better mobile features.
• Better HA configuration.

Our primary use case is to host a handful of different API services for the consumers of our customer. We build and maintain several of those APIs right on the Gateway using their policies. We use it to kind of proxy request through to Java services and other things that we have created.

The extensibility of it. It can do a lot of things. You can create little, custom Java assertions that you can insert to do your business logic, which might not be covered by the commercial product out-of-the-box. 

I like the extensibility of it. It can do a lot of things. You can create little, custom Java assertions which you can insert into your business logic. This might not be covered by the commercial product out-of-the-box. 

More developer focused tools. They have a nice debugger inside of the program, but when you are developing code with their policies, it is tough to visualize that sometimes as a developer. So, tools that are a little more focused on rapidly creating those policies would be beneficial.  

We actually started with this product a few years back. It is definitely improved significantly since then. I think the amount of releases and bug fixes that they have pushed out have really helped.

The scalability has been great for us. We have consumers that range from 10 to 20 users upwards to 1000s of users. Thus, it scales really well. It does a lot of load balancing and other nice, little technical tricks that help smooth out requests which come in.

They have come in sometimes to do onsite training when we requested it. For the most part, when we have technical problems, they are very responsive. They get it down to the developers quickly, who understand the problems and they work with us to get those fixes in their next release if it is something that is a bug or help us work around it. 

When we first started on the Gateway, it was a different company, then CA bought it. The difference from that other company, which might have been a smaller company, from there to CA has just been the responsiveness and that extra level of training and other support that we are getting from CA. 

I have been involved in deploying this product in several of our different environments from the ground up as well as in the upgrade process. From the CA part of it, everything has gone smooth. The problems are always on our side with our environments. I think the Gateway itself is a very simple product to get up and running and their upgrade process is good as well. There are a few little tricky things here and there like with everything, but for the most part, they continue to work to adjust it. 

It is better than similar Gateway products that I have used in the past. Again, that flexibility really lends itself to us, and our program, a lot. However, there are certainly some areas for continued improvement and it seems like they are going in the right direction, so hopefully that continues. 

Administration and configuration of the platform API management version 9.2. SaaS, security configuration, design, and implementation of APIs, which are exposed to partners of the company for the execution of business flows. All this is done quickly and easily with minimal effort.

• The API Gateway has allowed us to manage and maintain systems quickly, with great versatility, while solving problems in real-time.
• It allows us to keep clear traceability of the changes made in each of our APIs.
• A large number of security measures have been implemented which make data manipulation more reliable.
• As a SaaS product, control over some configuration elements and environments is lost.

• The speed and versatility in the implementation of APIs without writing a line of code in any programming language.
  
• The solution has numerous configuration options to increase security in communication.
• The administration interface (Policy Manager) is very easy to understand and use.

• This is a punctual need for the characteristics of the business or at the request of some partners: It is the use and configuration of VPNs, which in the current version is not enabled.
• Expose system properties and other configurations via the GUI (Policy Manager).
• Increase tools for manipulation of JSON messages.

Security. We have a lot of APIs, a lot of web services inside Motorola, and we wanted to have a solution which can secure all our APIs.

So far it has been doing well. But we are looking towards microservices technology. And we heard here, at this CA World conference, that they are coming up with a microservices API gateway. That is something that we would be interested in looking into. 

But as far as far as the classic API gateway goes, I think it is definitely doing well. We were bought by Lenovo, and eventually Lenovo, which did not have this solution, has also been convinced to use it. So overall, as one company, both Lenovo and Mortola will be using this product.

It can be scaled, especially the current version. It can be scaled as we need. And it can be used in different regions. We have different data centers in the U.S. and Beijing. We use it on-premise, on-cloud, and it can be hosted and used at any place and scaled across the regions. That's the primary benefit we have seen; other than providing security and the performance.

What we had before, Forum, obviously was not reaching our performance requirements. This really helped us, because every API that we get from external or from internal goes through this layer first, and it should not be a bottleneck. That was the problem we had before. Now it's no longer a bottleneck. It's more like a throughput, this process is less than 10 milliseconds for any particular API. 

So the number of transactions that we are able to process per second and the number of instances that we can use are benefits. 

Even before microservices API gateway came into the picture, two years back, CA really worked with us and helped us to get hourly pricing, so that we could spin up, spin down instances as we need, like during Thanksgiving or Christmas. So the product, by itself, is great, and the flexibility that CA has given us out of this product is really great.

From the security point of view it provides lot of features, as well as performance. I think it's 4000 transactions per seconds, per node, is what the performance is. So those two are major features that we have been looking for. It does both in a great way.

Microservices gateway is one thing in which we thought would be really good. It has come up, we just have to see how it's going to play out. Obviously, it's not going to replace the classic gateway, although we want to see that something in the microservices gateway that can actually replace classic gateway. That would be really nice. Right now, I don't think it's completely replaceable. It's just a part of it, but eventually they're saying that it will replace. So one day, where we can have a microservices gateway and we will not need the classic gateway at all, that is what we want to see.

We have never had any issues, to be frank. From the time that we had it installed we have never had any issues, whether in the non-prod or in production. So I would give it top rating from the stability point of view.

As mentioned, that's one of the great features, the scalability. We were able to scale up in incidences as needed, and scale down. So again, completely flexible. Top-rate, from the scalability point of view.

We use technical support only when we do the upgrades. My team, we always try to be at the latest and greatest version. Whenever they release, the next week we are already there, both in test and production. So when there's a new release, obviously there are some important technical features of which we are not aware. To learn about them we use the technical team. 

But other than that, from our point of view, as I mentioned, it has been pretty straightforward and pretty stable. We don't have a need to reach out to them, except when there are new features and we are migrating.

They're good. They have been really helping us. As I mentioned, CA as a whole has been a great partner for us and has been helping as we need. Whenever we need their support, they are there. Whenever we need information, they are there.

We were using Forum before, but we wanted a much more flexible solution that scales and has better performance. That's why we chose CA's API Gateway, to resolve our security, and provide the best performance for all the APIs that we have.

It wasn't really all that complex. What we had before was really pretty complex. When compared to that, what we have with CA is not.

We evaluated Forum, obviously. Layer 7 is one we looked into. Axway. IBM, because we use it a lot for e-commerce, so that is an API gateway we have been looking into.

Among most important criteria when selecting a vendor, the first thing is pricing. After that features, obviously, and then the performance and stability.

We would definitely recommend implementing Layer 7. The only reason you might not implement it is if you are looking at open source, but open source comes with its own issues and cons. But if the cost is not an issue, Layer 7 is the top and I would definitely recommend it to anybody.