F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

My main use case for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is placing our applications on F5 and the backend servers on the pool. We also regularly renew SSL certificates before they expire, usually one month in advance. This is the primary use with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have a couple of data centers, and each has its own F5 setup.

For F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), we usually work with F5 BIG-IP. Earlier, I think we were working on the I-series, and currently, we are working on the R-series. The setup in our environment is configured as high availability, meaning there are two F5s working as HA. Stryker usually works for load balancing. We have backend servers, which we call pool members, and we create a VIP to do the load balancing. It depends on user and application requirements regarding how they want to load balance and how many servers they provide. Accordingly, we set up the VIP and pool and select the appropriate load balancing method to distribute traffic across multiple servers. Mostly, we use the least connection method, although it varies based on the need. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) has a setup with HA failover, so during upgrades, we do a failover. Ideally, we activate the standby first before upgrading the other leg of HA. This setup helps us optimize traffic distribution across multiple servers.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) offers effective load balancing methods that help distribute traffic across our servers, whether we have two or several. This load balancing feature stands out as it is the fundamental work we do with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). While I recognize there are many features, such as iRules, which I have not explored yet, we primarily work on VIPs, pool members, and traffic distribution.

The load balancing algorithms' flexibility makes them very useful for our team, enabling us to choose different servers and manage load effectively. We use various methods based on user or application requirements, making the algorithms set up by F5 in the backend quite helpful.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) positively impacts our organization primarily through its load balancing capabilities. We avoid traffic overload on individual servers by placing backend servers behind F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) VIP. This load balancing helps us manage traffic effectively. Since the configuration of the I-series, we have had smooth performance, and with the recent migration to the R-series, it is working faster than before, providing positive outcomes for our operations. Since moving to the R-series, I notice improved performance; it is user-friendly and handles traffic efficiently. The upgrading process is different as we create tenants and a main host. R-series has better CPU and memory, leading to higher throughput with minimal downtime, making it a significant improvement over the I-series.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could improve file upload speeds when opening cases and attaching files; sometimes, downloading files like QKView takes time, depending on size. I expect faster resolutions when providing contact numbers while raising cases, as other companies typically do.

I have been working at Stryker for three years. Earlier I was at Ericsson, where I worked for three years as well. I have been working in this domain for six years. Since I joined Stryker, I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for three years.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is very stable.

In terms of scalability, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is good.

Customer support is quite good but could be faster. While I have not faced any challenges so far, I hope for quicker resolutions in the future.

We have never used any other solutions before F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), as we have consistently relied on it since our initial setup. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is truly reliable, and we have not considered any alternatives for our load balancing needs.

I would advise others to try using the more advanced R-series model, which offers greater capacity and capabilities. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a well-known product, and everyone recognizes its features and functionality, so you can confidently recommend it without needing lengthy introductions.

I have heard of features such as X-Map or X-Connect, but I have not had the chance to work on them. Sometimes users request details about how many users hit the VIP and their IPs, but I am unsure about that feature. I want to learn more so I can provide those details when needed. Currently, we only have static information on the pool members.

I would rate this product a ten out of ten.

Our main use cases involve multiple applications, so we are using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) services, and we are using WAF and ASM services to secure those applications and load balance them, as we have multiple data centers and use GTM for load balancing purposes.

I am very much happy with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

I have not used the caching feature of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

We have a few iRules that we use in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), but not much because I think it increases CPU load, and we do not require many iRules as of now, so we have only configured a couple.

The iRules have helped in handling traffic one hundred percent.

The real-time DDoS protection offered by F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is very important for my security strategy one hundred percent.

The impact of SSL offloading on reducing server load and latency is very much positive because whatever traffic we receive, we encrypt at our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) level, which has definitely reduced the additional load and SSL decryption load on the servers, so it has very much helped us and it is very smooth; it will not take much time and will not impact our regular traffic.

I measure the effectiveness of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)'s traffic distribution in maintaining application availability by observing that I have not encountered any issues or slowness; it is working very smoothly.

The pricing of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is on the higher side compared to competitors, but it is worth it.

I have been working with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), ASM, and GTM since the last three to four years, but I have not yet worked with NGINX.

I have faced no issues with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

I have encountered an issue with technical support; not all the time, but a few times we have observed that we have not received proper support or on-time support, and sometimes the person assisting us is not properly skilled, but we have only observed this issue very few times. Overall, my experience with F5 is very good compared to Radware.

I do not expect any additional functionalities from the next release of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) because currently, we are only focused on load balancing our application servers and we are happy with the features we are using.

I am satisfied with the configuration, interface, documentation, and performance of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

My overall review rating for this product is nine out of ten.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a perfect product for load balancing and WAF, and I would recommend it far more than any other product.

The load balancing capabilities of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) are excellent, and I have tried both the load balancing and the WAF, which are perfect from both perspectives.

In one product, you can perform load balancing, WAF, GPLS, GNS, and many other functions.

The implementation of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) has positively impacted our network security.

The GUI of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could be improved. It's not something regarding how it processes or blocks, as that's perfect. However, it still feels a bit legacy regarding the GUI, and they could improve it significantly. That's a minor issue, not a big concern.

In my company, I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for about one and a half years.

It was very easy to install F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

The deployment of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) took about one to two weeks.

Regarding return on investment, the device is very stable. The updates are already up to the latest versions, and I can rely on the system even if it's at the end of support. I can manage the troubleshooting and configuration by myself.

I haven't faced any issues with technical support for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), so I was unable to submit a ticket. I haven't experienced any issues, so I'm not in a position to rate them.

Neutral

There was help from our partner during the installation of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). That was part of the deal.

Currently, I am not working with any other vendors aside from F5.

After we deployed everything with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), we didn't do much configuration on it. Everything is deployed and working very well, unless we have some changes or blocking issues. We just log in to make sure that everything is good.

If you configure it properly, there are not many updates, especially in the firmware. They keep you updated with the latest signatures and attacks.

We did not use AI with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

I recommend it because it is very stable, with minor issues.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) a 9.

Positive

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. 

We have deployed it for two customers. One uses the local LTM for load balancing the application. The other uses it as a raft and for load balancing.

F5 is easy to deploy, though more challenging than Kemp. Configuration takes time, but it's stable. It offers features Kemp doesn't provide. For example, there are predefined templates for handling Office 365. You can download them for automatic configuration.

In terms of pricing, it could be more competitive.

I have been working with this solution for more than six years. 

It is a stable product.

It is scalable. All our customers are enterprise-level. 

I'm satisfied with the technical support from F5. The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

It is easy to deploy. It took us a few hours to deploy because we had experience with the solution. A few hours will be sufficient if you have already studied how to deploy.

Configuration and deployment depend on the GUI. F5 has a different GUI, so it takes some time to get used to it. Kemp, on the other hand, has a single page where you can access everything. 

With F5, you have to go to different sections for configuration. For example, to deploy a certificate, you import it, create a profile, go to the virtual service section, and link the profile. Kemp simplifies this process by allowing a static import of the certificate, making it more straightforward.

GUI plays a significant role in the ease of configuration.

One person is enough for the deployment process. 

Maintenance is not that difficult, but compared to Kemp, it is. Upgrading can be challenging; I faced issues with F5 upgrades, needed support assistance.

Pricing is quite high. We have taken it on a five-year basis. Not yearly.

And for support also, there is an extra cost.

It depends on the customer's requirements. If both F5 and Kemp provide have the same features, I would suggest the customer go with Kemp because it's the cheapest solution. But if the customer requires something different supported by F5, then go with F5.

Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten; there is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

I primarily use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for server load balancing and SSL offloading. The tool helps offload the SSL processes instead of having the servers handle it. Additionally, we use the Web Application Firewall (WAF) application for protecting our servers.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) has improved our organization's performance by increasing the uptime of our applications. By including redundancies for applications, the traffic is balanced across multiple servers, which helps secure our processes.

The most valuable features of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) are server load balancing and SSL offloading or termination. These features help protect our servers and improve application uptime.

While F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is not a do-it-all solution, it has a feature called iRules that allows customization of the device's non-default functionality.

One improvement could be updating the user interface (UI).

I have never faced any stability issues with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

I do not have any complaints about scalability or technical issues with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

Customer service and support depend on prioritization. However, support is good and on par with other solutions. They follow their SLAs precisely to reach out to us based on the priority of the issue.

Positive

There are many competitors in the load balancing market. However, F5 has been a leader in load balancing solutions for many years. They offer a 'Swiss Army knife' approach with multiple functionalities like synchronization.

There are multiple solutions available in the market. I chose to work with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) due to its comprehensive features and leadership in the industry.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

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.

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.

Our primary use cases for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager are high availability for applications and SSL offload certificates.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager helps reduce our downtime for maintenance purposes. It also offers us ease of use for the deployment of certificates onto a central location, as opposed to individual nodes.

The feature I find the most valuable is the support infrastructure.

I would like to see tighter integration with all the product lines. A more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users. 

It would also be great if the solution was less expensive. 

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager for more than 15 years. 

I think it is very stable. 

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very scalable. We have quite a few people using it within our organization, from admins to vice presidents. Maintenance is also very minimal. 

Prior to using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager, I used Cisco's and Nortel's versions. 

How straightforward the initial setup depends on the build. Overall, on a scale from one to five, with one being complex, and five being straightforward, I would give F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager a four. It might take us two or three months to get everything up and built.

We implemented in-house. 

We have seen a return on investment. 

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is an expensive product. However, the only additional cost we have with it is the yearly support cost. 

We did evaluate other options. Ultimately, we chose F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager because of the user community and the solution's ease of use. 

The advice I would give to others who are looking to implement F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is this: look at their user knowledge base first to see if the solution truly fits what you need.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager a nine.