F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

We use it primarily for WAF.

The ability to quickly set up. I understood it very quickly. I had some URLs which pointed to my load balancers, and inside there, I had to send an action to the API Gateway. I thought it was going to be a very complex thing for me to do, but that one rule that I had to create, it solved everything for me.

The connection through the API Gateway worked in no time, which was fantastic. From the perspective of us building it, once you have that one rule you can stamp it out. Also, it was easy for me to show operations, "Look how easy it is. There's nothing complex about it." 

• iRules
• Simplicity

I was able to simply and quickly set up the WAF rules and security, and also set up easily complex policies and rules which gave me some great features to redirect. So, I had to integrate API Gateway into our WAF, because we're a healthcare company, and we have to maintain security. Therefore, they didn't want to have public endpoints that had not been inspected. The policy features inside the WAF rules were really easy for me to set up. What I thought was going to take me two months, I had done in about two weeks. Between Googling and F5 having great information, so instead of using traditional iRules, I used a policy thing that they recommended. It was much simpler and cleaner, and seemed to execute faster. It was a great feature.

The configuration and implementation of what I thought I was going to have to do was a lot simpler than I expected it to be. That was a plus.

People love them in security, but their costs are completely out of bounds. However, I'm not a security guy, so I don't necessarily know all the ins and outs of why our security team may have chosen this product versus other ones.

I am disappointed with the additional cost. 25 megabytes is low. If we get to a thousand, a gig, It is like three dollars an hour. While you can get a reduction in price, when I price them against anyone else, they are wildly overpriced.

I used GitHub for autoscaling CloudFormation, and I found two bugs and I submitted them. Their implementation in GitHub could be cleaner and allow for a bit more customization. We always end up customizing these things, so I found two bugs and I thought they were big bugs so I was surprised. This wasn't necessarily relative to product. It was more about the support role of GitHub and the way it was launching. However, the features that they said would work, did not.

It seems very stable. I've had no problems with stability at all. It's been rock solid, from the perspective of staying in line and working as expected.

I did individual testing. We were doing very small tests to start, 25 megabits. So, I was driving close to 25 megabits through it. Memory and CPU, I thought might be a bit of a concern, but overall it seemed good. It was doing what I needed it to do, and doing it well, so I didn't notice anything in my traffic.

I haven't thought of production workloads on it yet. I don't know how the performance is going to be in terms of CPU memory, but I was told by other people because of what we're doing on it, it could be hard to scale. So, we may have to end up buying more because we will be encrypting and decrypting. We have to inspect that traffic, so that will be CPU intensive. Therefore, one instance may not be enough for us, as we may be spinning up multiples across Multi-AZs.

We will be just stacking our costs. Granted, it is virtualization, and you can only get so much out of it. However, I haven't put true production workloads through it. I have only done my testing, and I am concerned a bit about these factors and how they may drive our costs even more, because I will have to spin up more WAFs to accommodate for high CPU and memory loads.

From a cost perspective, I agreed to analyze the standards in terms of load balancing. However, the cost that they have with AWS are almost prohibitive. I'm being forced to use F5 WAF. I would not simply use it based on cost. I agree that they have some great features, but for me, cost is key in terms of AWS. 

This applies to buying in the AWS Marketplace. If you go to a simple WAF doing 25 megabits, and I'm paying for the instance cost as well, it is over a dollar an hour. You can add that up and ask for some discounts, but relative to other players, they are significantly more expensive.

We will need a lot of these, and it can be a real negative driver in terms of spend and how we will be able to move forward.

Purchasing though the AWS Marketplace was easy; it was a piece of cake. You go right in, and the options are there. It was nice you can pick the different kind of group you wanted and what type of security you wanted. It did put in a lot of information that would build a lot of the initial infrastructure for me in terms of supporting my load balancer and creating security. Granted, I destroyed it all, but it was nice and it was there. It gave me the ability to level set what I should create versus what they put in place. I could see what they're doing here and I can match it to my own criteria. What they put in the AWS Marketplace and came through with the license, it worked well.

We chose to go through the AWS Marketplace because you can do almost anything you are going to launch there. The first time you launch, you always grab from the market, particularly for PoCs, as it's just easier. There's no reason why I wouldn't go through the AWS Marketplace, because they've already have F5 WAF. It's exactly what I want and it's exactly what I needed, so I can go from there.

I am a fan of using AWS natively. It is much cheaper.

We also looked at Check Point and Barracuda, but they were not markedly cheaper. The whole reason to use AWS was its ability to create resources which have more economic scale. This has almost started to get lost with the prices that these companies are charging.

I started my PoC back in April, which is when  I finished three PoCs across different deployments for F5. So, I'd probably been using the product for about eight months.

The product works.

We have F5 all across our environment. We use them for both VPNs and for traditional load balancers. So, we have VIPRIONs and several different versions of on-premise F5 hardware, as well. From an operations team perspective, everything is easy to learn; seamless. The ability to get teams to focus on AWS F5 is easy because they already know everything there. From an operational perspective, it is a win-win because they already know how to work with the F5.

Within our AWS environment, it is integrated with network load balancers. Then, depending on the traffic flow, it can either be back-end through the Palo Alto IDS IPS or it can be front-end for the IDS IPS. So, it has integration in between there, which was very nice. I was able to set up very intricate NAT rules, because I had to handle the traffic away. It did work very well. There were some issues with the routing, but that was more how AWS routes rather than F5 which I had to work around. Other than that, getting traffic back and forth between the two and the network load balancing was a piece of cake.

We are using the solution for our internal and client purposes. We are a cloud service provider.

The solution provides good application delivery and network optimization features. We use all the features provided by the solution. It fulfills our requirements. All our infrastructure is set up with high availability through hardware and virtualization in all flavors and levels based on the customer requirements.

The pricing must be more flexible. We get billed for firewalls based on the usage. It will be helpful if the solution provides such flexibility.

I have been using the solution for many years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. It meets the requirements.

We have contacted the technical support team. The team is customer-friendly and knowledgeable.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes just one minute because we use scripts. We need one technical person for the deployment.

The solution is robust and reliable. It provides us with security.

The product is expensive. We pay a yearly licensing fee.

We recommend the product to others. It is scalable and reliable. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

BIG-IP has multiple uses, including VPN, application firewall, and load balancing.

BIG-IP can do anything. It's like a Swiss Army knife. 

BIG-IP LTM is taking a long time to mature in cloud environments. They plan to improve cloud integration in the next version, but it isn't out yet. It's essential because more companies are moving to the cloud these days and using things like Kubernetes or microservices. F5 needs to improve in that direction, and they are. 

I have used BIG-IP for about 15 years

BIG-IP LTM's hardware is stable, and the operating system is great. 

BIG-IP can scale horizontally or vertically because it's a blade system.  If you need more hardware on the same appliance, you can put blades on it. They are a bit expensive but work fine. You can create a cluster if you want to scale horizontally and put any hardware you need on it. You can scale as much as you want.

I rate F5 support seven out of 10. The response time is okay, but sometimes you have to explain your issue to multiple support engineers before it gets resolved. It's a common issue with most tech support. 

Neutral

Setting up BIG-IP LTM was complicated in the beginning, but it has gotten easier over time. The deployment time varies depending on your environment. You have to connect and activate the license, but the operating system and modules are pre-installed. The basic setup takes only an hour, but you might need to do some additional configuration. 

BIG-IP LTM is somewhat pricey for a small company with a limited budget. 

We are using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager for all the modules for DNS applications. It is a core product for us.

Since the COVID pandemic hit the whole company has been working remotely. It's improved the remote working by handling the security and the reachability of the company.

The most valuable features are DNS, APM, and ASM. Additionally, it is easy to use and you have a lot of flexibility to use the solution within a network.

The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager.

There's can be some improvements done on the access policy manager(APM) such as supporting APIs and web services.

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

I have found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager to be stable.

The scalability of the solution is good.

We have approximately 20 engineers using the solution.

The solution is extensively being used and we plan to increase usage.

We use many other solutions in our company.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

We have one engineer that handles the support of the F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager.

We have seen an ROI by using this solution.

We are on an annual license to use the solution.

We have evaluated other solutions but we found the scalability and usability to be better in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager.

I strongly recommend this solution.

I rate F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager a nine out of ten.

We are using it for internal traffic management and traffic load balancing. Its version is up to date.

Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly.

My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

Its stability has been great. I haven't had any issues with it in terms of downtime.

It is scalable, especially in the cloud. On-prem, it may need additional licensing or an additional appliance. That depends on how large and what the use case is specifically for the customer.

I'd evaluate their tech support as a five out of five. They are very knowledgeable. They have the answers, and if they don't, they're able to escalate and point us to the correct people or provide the correct literature.

Positive

I was not a part of the initial deployment or rollout. There are three people who are managing it and deploying it. They are system admins.

It is a little pricey. I wish the pricing was cheaper, but I wish the pricing was cheaper for everything.

Make sure that you know how much traffic you're going to have coming through because that can affect whether you need a big box or a small box.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

As an IT developer, mostly I use load balancing for the traffic. Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements.

It's definitely scalable and is stable as well.

The initial setup is not complex, and the technical support is fine.

I'm not very sure about the security with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have our own private data center, but we are going to migrate our private data center into the Azure cloud environment. Security will then be a major concern when we migrate our own whole infrastructure to the public cloud.

So, I think they should improve in terms of security because nowadays, most organizations try to build their infrastructure on public cloud.

More documentation should be uploaded because very limited documentation is available on the internet. It will also help us to understand the system before purchasing the product.

I've been using this solution for two years.

It's a stable solution.

It's definitely scalable. It's a distributed architecture and micro services, so it's scalable. In fact, we are planning to increase usage and scale horizontally.

I don't have any issues with respect to technical support; it has been fine.

The initial setup is not complex. 

If you have your own data center, then you can use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). I don't see any issues because they have been in the industry for a long time, and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is very stable.

I would rate this solution at eight on a scale from one to ten.

I am an integrator. I implement solutions for our customers.

It's straightforward deployment application delivery control. 

Our customers have a lot of services that are public, in their internal network and external public network.

They use F5 BIG-IP to publish these services in a secure manner.

They use it for publish billing system services, and some uses for their internal services, such as the DNS active directory.

F5 BIG IP is a rock-solid solution. It's a very good solution.

I am very satisfied with the quality of this product.

There is a lot of documentation available.

I'm not very familiar with the services pattern. I am still exploring the features of this solution.

I am just working with a single application, which we need to publish. I don't know how many services they are using, and what kind of services they operate.

Technical support could be improved.

I am still a bit of a novice. I have only been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for a year.

We are currently deploying this on the service providers but dealing with the IT department for our customers.

It's an enterprise network that is servicing the internal IT traffic for our customers. This is traffic from the IT management systems, and billing systems.

All systems have bugs, and F5 is not an exception. 

In my experience, I didn't face any critical bugs that stopped the deployment. 

I don't think that F5 is worse than other vendors in this perspective.

I had some cases where I contacted technical support.

They have a good quality level of support and have helped us resolve our issues.

However, I have had a situation where I had a bad experience, but overall it's not the norm, it was just an exception.

I would compare technical support with Cisco, although I would say that Cisco is better.

Technical support could improve.

The setup of the F5 BIG-IP system is a very straightforward process. It is very well documented and is described on the vendor information systems.

They provide a lot of information on their site and on the central portal. You can even find information on YouTube. 

I am not familiar with the price of this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others. I am very satisfied with it.

I would rate F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) a nine out of ten.

There are many use cases. It is mainly used for local traffic management. It can also be used as an advanced firewall for an application or as a VPN policy manager.

We have cloud, on-premise, and hybrid deployments.

Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful.

The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization.

It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management.

We were their partners for five years, and since last year, we are officially their distributor.

It is really awesome. You can scale from one or two servers to hundreds of servers. They have all the modules that a customer needs. You can go for on-premise or cloud deployment. You can have whatever you need.

Our clients are medium and large businesses.

They have 24/7 support. You can open a ticket directly in F5, and there is no need to use another system.

They reply very fast. They usually get back within four hours, and sometimes, you get a response immediately. They have four-tier system support.

Its initial setup is straightforward. It is just like a wizard and not complex. It takes only a few seconds.

You can buy it on a yearly basis, or you can go for a subscription. For on-premise boxes, it is just the RMA.

I would rate F5 Traffic Management Operating System a nine out of ten.