F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

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 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.

I use the tool as a load balancer to distribute user traffic across different servers. It is used for scalability purposes. Depending on the amount of traffic that comes in, I can send that traffic to different servers and load-balance it. Also, the web application firewall protects our servers and applications from cyberattacks.

The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is that it allows you to manipulate things. Now, manipulation here is in the sense that you can do whatever you want to do in the solution using something called iRule, which is a programming interface for F5. So, this is something I find to be extremely useful when compared to other vendors.

Based on my experience using F5 and by only taking into consideration the last seven years, I have found that the reporting mechanism is bad. F5 seems to prioritize its core functions and has not placed a strong emphasis on logging and reporting. I say that the reporting is bad based on my experiences and after considering the requests from customers over the past 11 years. They often ask for specific reports and information that are not available from the devices.

I want the response from tech support to get faster.

I have worked for almost 11 years with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager.

The solution's stability is pretty good.

I handle almost a hundred-plus customers who are using this solution. The solution comes in different form factors. The high-end models are scalable owing to their ability to cater to certain requirements. So, since there are different models available, the solution is scalable.

I am not happy with the tech support. If I compare it with Fortinet, it is not great. Though I am able to connect over a call with the tech team, it is very difficult to get the right engineer at the right time. When it comes to Fortinet, you get the right person to help you at the right time.

While the initial setup of the tool is easy and straightforward, the complexity of onboarding each application can vary and depends on the specific application being used. Also, since I have been working on F5 for about 11 years, it may take me a day to deploy the whole setup.

I am not aware of the exact cost of the product. However, it is expensive. The pricing can either be on a yearly or monthly subscription basis, and this choice is left to the customer's discretion. The product also includes a basic hardware support guarantee and subscription-based services, which can affect the overall cost.

People need to have a basic understanding of HTTP and SSF. Additionally, this device is not solely a networking device but rather a solution that operates as an application device. Therefore, knowledge of applications, programming, and related fields is essential. I just mean to say that the people who are planning to use this solution should not only have a background in networking but also should possess some application programming knowledge. I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

For my clients, the primary use cases include load balancing, both for server and link load balancing.

We have used it to link two or three servers and make them communicable from outside. It works well as a load balancer.

There is room for improvement in terms of stability. The F5 BIG-IP LTM allows multiple virtual machines to run on a single appliance. However, if one of those virtual portions fails, it can cause issues and impact the overall stability of the solution.

I have been working with this solution for four years. I have worked with F5 as a system integrator, partner, and MSP.

It is a stable solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten. Rather than having separate appliances for each virtual machine, the F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) allows multiple virtual machines to run on one appliance. However, if one of those virtual portions is no longer available, it can cause issues.

It is scalable. I would say it's around eight or nine out of ten. Our clients are at the enterprise level. 

The customer service and support is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy. I would rate the initial installation a nine out of ten, one being very difficult and ten being very easy.

We installed the solution in a web-based environment and have implemented it in two data centers, one located in New Jersey and the other in a different location. We have used F5 for both firewall load balancing and link load balancing. We have two sets of F5 deployed at each location. 

We completed the installation within a week with the help of a team of five people. At present, a team of five is managing and maintaining the solution in the data center and for the local portion.

It is cheaper than the average on the market. I would rate it as a five since it is in the middle range, with ten being the most expensive. It is good, and the price is reasonable. 
Moreover, I have only worked on five or six devices and have not dealt with licensing rules. However, in my previous job as a system integrator, I did work on local installations, which were relatively quick and inexpensive.

In my opinion, the Radware product is also good. F5 and Alteon products are equally good, so I would rate them an eight.

I would recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using F5 BIG-IP LTM for our application which is a reverse proxy. We use it for availability, and to process the application because it is used in the financial industry.

The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is it helps our delivery team to make policies and rules for application.

The user interface of F5 BIG-IP LTM is old and could improve.

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

I rate the stability of F5 BIG-IP LTM a nine out of ten.

The scalability of F5 BIG-IP LTM is good.

This solution is best suited for medium to large-sized businesses in the finance and telecommunications industries.

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

The support from F5 BIG-IP LTM is not good.

I rate the support from F5 BIG-IP LTM a five out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of F5 BIG-IP LTM is simple because our project is not complicated. The implementation took approximately three days.

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

The price of F5 BIG-IP LTM could improve.

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

This is a good solution, but it is expensive. I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate F5 BIG-IP LTM an eight out of ten.

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.