F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

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. 

It is for internal load balancing of servers.

It provides load balancing. So, it potentially brings some performance improvement and high availability. If one server goes down, there is a seamless transition to the other one. 

The load balancing function, the monitors that you can create, and iRules programmability are most valuable.

Its GUI could be a bit better. Other than that, it's already pretty good. We don't use it in a high-performance environment. So, we don't really care so much about too many features.

It has been quite a few years. We might have been using it for six to eight years.

It has been stable and reliable. It has been working well for us.

It is scalable, but we didn't really need to scale. It met all the performance requirements we had. So, we had no issues where we were not able to add something.

Currently, its usage is quite low, but it's not because of the product. It's because of how our company works. In other words, how much we need to use it. It's not used a lot, and we don't plan to expand its usage.

We did open some tickets, and usually, it was a very good experience.

For load balancing, we previously had Cisco solutions. We had CSS and then Application Control Engine (ACE). We switched because they stopped that service. It was end-of-life, and Cisco discontinued that range.

It was straightforward. I would rate it a five out of five in terms of the ease of setup. 

There were no issues or obstacles, and its deployment was pretty fast. We had to do preparation of all the surroundings, such as the VLAN or IP assignment, but the deployment itself was just a couple of hours.

We have a managed service provider, and they hired a consultant. We had some help there, but that was not just because of LPM. We also had other modules of F5. It was our initial or first experience with F5, and there were also other things to be migrated, which were much more complex than the LPM module. That's why the consultant was there.

For deployment, there was one person deploying it. For maintenance, we have a managed service provider. So, we have a team of people, but they're also looking at other devices and not just F5.

It was probably a one-time purchase and then you have maintenance, but I don't have the details on that. We bought what they called the Best bundle at the time, which pretty much included all of the modules. There was probably no additional cost afterward.

There were evaluations. There were Citrix NetScaler and Application Delivery Controller from A10 Networks, but in the end, F5 was chosen because of the virtualization environment that we were using at the time. We were using VMware, and we are still using it. They had better support for the VMware VDI solution. They were able to act as a gateway for the VMware VDI.

One piece of advice would be that if you are not that much concerned with performance or you definitely don't need physical hardware, you can go for a virtual edition. It might save you the migration effort when the hardware is end-of-life. 

If you need a load balancer, go for it. We didn't have any hurdles or obstacles. I would rate it 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.

The primary use case of this solution is for reverse processing applications and services. 

Our organization greatly benefited from having a reliable and always-accessible F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). The customization options have especially come in handy, and we can modify, insert or remove the header. 

The most valuable feature is iRules.

The area for improvement would be analytical capabilities and configurations in LTM. For example, I want to know the end-to-end processes. If the traffic comes to the virtual servers without taking a wide shot, I would like to see the reason for the latency. The analytics should provide insight into latency across various traffic routes and virtual servers. The additional features in the next release should be real-time analytical capabilities.

I have used F5 BIG-IP LTM for 12 years.

It is a stable product. There have not been any issues with stability, and I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

In terms of scalability, there are some limitations on the architecture level in F5. For example, F5 has a limit of eight Virtual Control Planes (VCPs) per hardware configuration. It means expansion and scalability require additional hardware resources. I would rate scalability a five out of five. Only I am involved with this solution at my company.

The customer service and support team are experts, but I have faced difficulty with response time and resolution time. They need to have more workforce to deal with clients’ resolutions.

Positive

I have been using the F5 BIG-IP LTM for 12 years and have not felt compelled to look at alternatives.

The initial setup of F5 BIG-IP LTM is straightforward. It is user-friendly and takes around 30 minutes to set up. A beginner could set it up. You just follow the documentation.

The product is deployed on-premise.

I definitely have seen an increase in ROI.

I use a yearly subscription, which is the most expensive one now compared to its competitors.

I would rate the pricing a one out of ten. It is the most expensive solution out there. 

I also evaluated Cisco and Citrix. I evaluated the F5 based on its stability, customization and reliability. No other product can match it.

Users should keep their individual needs in mind before deciding whether to opt for this solution, considering the applications that need delivering, if load balancing is necessary or if an ADC is required. Such questions can help users make the right choice.

I would rate F5 LTM a ten out of ten. 

I used F5 BIG-IP LTM for the backend load balancing for the servers.

The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller.

The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models.

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for approximately eight years.

The TMOS of F5 BIG-IP LTM has a mid-layer that is an open source software and the user's management layer which can cause some issues for potential security risks. Other solutions have operating systems that are more secure, such as Cisco, Juniper, and Huawei.

People tend not to use F5 BIG-IP LTM because of this issue. They prefer to use more proprietary solutions, such as Apple solutions which typically can be more secure.

Overall the solution is stable as long as you have the updates and proper configurations.

If there is a need to scale, there is a need to replace the hardware to allow for additional scalability.

Our department is between fifteen to twenty people as operators, but we are selling to half a million customers using the solution.

I rate the scalability of F5 BIG-IP LTM five out of ten.

There is poor support in the region if there are issues. If someone does not pay the high price for premium support then the quality of the support is not ideal. 

I have used many other solutions similar to F5 BIG-IP LTM. There are other solutions that provide the same functionality at a lower price.

The documentation is detailed for the implementation and overall usage of the solution compared to other vendors. The knowledge of their solution and training is great.

We use professional implementation services to deploy F5 BIG-IP LTM.

The licensing model of F5 BIG-IP LTM is highly complex. The operation cost of the solution is high. The overall cost is high.

I rate the price of  F5 BIG-IP LTM a one out of ten.

We are slowly shifting to a new solution because of the lack of support in the region. Additionally, the new solution has similar delivery, a less expensive, and an uncomplicated licensing model.

Overall, F5 BIG-IP LTM is a quality solution. However, if you do not complete the frequent updates there can be security threats.

I rate F5 BIG-IP LTM a seven out of ten.

If companies have the money then this is a good solution. However, if they do not have the budget there are other solutions with similar features on the market.

We use it for low balancing.

It has been in our environment for four to five years, but I have only been using it for a little over a year.

• The detail that you have available when setting up iRules. 
• How the traffic routing works in F5.

The management process seems a bit difficult. 

The management interface is unclear, complex, and not concise. I would like a better user interface.

For integration with other AWS environments, we do some tie-ins with some autoscaling groups. This has been challenging for us. We have had issues, where when autoscaling groups scale up, there are some instances which are not showing up in the proper size. Then, those IPs would get registered with F5, but never get released. Therefore, we are ending up with a whole bunch of ghosted IPs. However, this is more an implementation detail than an F5 detail.

It is very stable. I have no concerns regarding stability for F5.

We are seasonal, so we go from low to high volumes. F5 has never been a concern of ours for stability.

We run an Active-Active version of two instances, so scalability between the on-premise and AWS versions hasn't been a huge issue for us. Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot.

We have support agreements in place, but they are managed by the infrastructure team. I do not contact the technical support, they do.

The integration and configuration into the AWS environment was pretty good.

The product was already in place when I came onboard.

My preference is to use AWS natively, but there are some issues around session management and so on, which have prevented us from using it. While a lot of these issues have been solved, a lot of our applications are tied to the F5 infrastructure.

Always use the Automatic Synching between F5. Don't try to use the API to do the synching. This is where we went wrong. We were trying to push the nodes to F5 individually instead of letting F5 handle the synchronization process, and it doesn't work.

We were previously using the on-premise version, but now we are using the AWS version. They are about the same as far as functionality.

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.