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.

Positive

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.

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.

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.

I work for a bank, and we have a mobile banking app with around 25,000 users.  We use LTM for load balancing on the internal network, and the web feature helps us fill holes in application security due to vulnerabilities in legacy applications. 
It also provides perimeter protection against DDoS attacks and SQL injection. 

F5's attack signatures and automation are the most valuable features. The disaster recovery capabilities are also excellent. You don't need to do anything. It has automatic failover from production.

LTM's cloud capabilities could be improved. Cloud providers all offer load balancing, but you can't get the same level of security. F5's cloud service is still not on par with its on-prem service. 

F5 acquired multiple companies a few years ago, but they still haven't integrated those solutions. For example, F5 acquired Shape Security, which had an excellent solution for detecting bots and automated login attacks, but F5 offers the solution in an inflexible way. 

It is only available as a cloud-based solution. It isn't zone-based. Some companies are restricted from sending financial data outside the country because of GDPR in Europe or other national regulations. Here in the UAE, we can't send host data out. 

I have used LTM for 10 years. 

I rate LTM nine out of 10 for stability.

LTM is highly scalable, especially if you are moving away from hardware appliances. You can go for a VM and follow the basic steps of sizing, etc. and you can buy additional licenses if necessary. 

F5's standard support isn't the best, but their premium support is good if you're willing to pay for it. 

We used a different product called Avi. Its load balancing wasn't as mature as F5's, and Avi couldn't perform automated disaster recovery as well. We used it extensively for a year and a half for internal services.

Setting up LTM is simple if you have basic network and security knowledge. We have on-prem and cloud versions because we are still not fully migrated to the cloud. Some of our services are still running inside the data center. 

LTM is a good product, but it's expensive. They should make it more competitive because cloud providers offer free load balancing. Cloud providers can't cover all the security aspects of F5, but you get a decent amount of security. Cloud environments are becoming the norm across the IT industry. Many of the larger companies that previously used on-prem infrastructure are switching to the cloud, so companies like Fortinet and Palo Alto are reducing their prices. Otherwise, they can't compete in the cloud. 

I rate F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager nine out of 10. If you are considering LTM, you should think about your requirements. Do you have an enterprise use case? Do you need security? If not, you might be fine with just a simple load balancer. However, LTM is a good option if you need security automation and load balancing with granular capabilities. It depends on what your business needs.

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.

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. 

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.