F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

There is more than one use case. The most important is the Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We are using it to load balance our web applications, SSL decryption and application adjusting, along with some TCP features. We are also load balancing traffic between appropriate back-ends for risk. 

We can use it for load balancing purposes on an HA proxy software. However, hardware load balancing is the best way due to some hardware flaws for incoming traffic. We are not using CPU resources for a load balancing SSL decryption and adjusting some parameters for incoming and outgoing traffic. F-5 has a lot of appliances, which can be used for appropriate tasks, e.g., for big tasks, we can use Vipiron devices. As well, we have a lot of software blades, which can be divided into virtual clusters, multi-purposes, etc.

We are using the Big-IP, LTM, ASM, and GTM modules.

• The Local Traffic Manager (LTM) provides a simple low balance and SSL decryption, in addition to some TCP parameters, for incoming and outgoing traffic to redirect appropriate traffic patterns to appropriate servers. 
• We are using Application Security Manager (ASM) as a web application firewall, where there is a security signature to avoid a web level breach. 
• We are using global traffic manager (GTM). Its main use cases is for application firewall modules, therefore we are not using it yet, but we are going to implement it for DDoS protection on some of our web services.

I would like to see F-5 implement a regular routing like in other Linux-based devices. We know the F-5 is not a router, but can be used for traffic forwarding, so it's not the same as other devices if we compare it with Citrix-based devices. It is a simple Linux-based routing software. I don't have any problems with it. However, in F-5, when we try and integrate in some complex networks, we have to use some additional routing scenarios from a Layer 3 perspective, then we have some problems. It would be great if this were fixed somehow.

We have to keep in mind features when we deploy an F-5 solution. Designing the same approach in Citrix can often be simpler. I have written syntax in F-5 which were complicated; not straightforward. For example, in a Citrix device, we have a lot of predefined patterns, and it's much simpler to implement.

We have not had issues with the stability, though we have experienced issues with the flexibility.

The support of F-5 is fine. In comparison with Citrix, F-5 technical support is much better.

We previously used Citrix NetScaler: 

• Citrix NetScaler SDX, which can be divided in multiple instances.
• Citrix VPX.

The licensing strategy for F5 is good.

We are in the security business, basically working in two segments; the first is in the financial sector, with the largest banks in the country, and second, we work with some government organizations and corporate businesses. Only B2B for now, not much retail. We have a few projects in insurance companies. The solution is deployed on-premise in our office and we basically use it for demo and testing purposes. We deploy for our customers both on-premise and on cloud. We are a distribution channel, like a reseller. I'm a channel development manager.

For BIG-IP, I think the most requested functionality is its NetFlow balancing and traffic balancing, as well as its secure access and its optimization of access to applications. The solution is the most requested by our customers, so it's an important direction for our business.

I'd like to see a more intuitive interface. The market now is moving into salvage services, different kinds of services, not only hardware solutions. 

I've been using the solution for four months. 

The product is scalable, we have around 200 users in our company. In terms of our customers, there would probably be over 1,000 users.  We have a huge company, but our department for network security products consists of about 25 people. In half of them, users are the technical specialists.

We're just starting to work on setting up our own support service for clients. We hope that maybe next year we could add support products to our product line also.

We have other vendors in our portfolio, all of them working for performance network, performance optimization, and application implementation. We generally propose a few solutions to our customers. 

We have a technical department with a lot of certified specialists who work on the implementation side of things and we also support some of our departments and external clients. It's not my area of expertise. 

We are planning to expand to other segments in the market, healthcare or logistics or even some FMCG retail companies. We hope the F5 solutions will help us to expand. We intend to continue providing this solution and to involve more partners in the F5 business. I would recommend this solution. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

Our primary use case for this solution is as an alternative for ADT. We work with standard enterprise customers because this product is not affordable for the SME, it's not a cheap solution. We are partners with F5 and I'm a pre-sales and technical executive. 

The most valuable feature is the iRule.

The reporting could be improved and I'd also like to see the UI adjusted to make configuration easier. There are some things in the F5 configuration that are complicated. 

I've been using this solution for 16 years in total, continuously for the last seven years. 

I think this solution is very stable. 

This is a scalable solution. 

Compared to other solutions, the technical support is not very user friendly. 

I previously worked with Fortinet which is a much more reasonably priced solution. 

The initial setup is somewhat more complex than you would find in other solutions. Implementation can be completed in a couple of days but in terms of the configuration firewall of the product, for any application it will take a minimum of 15 days and up to a month.

If a company wants a good solution and has the money for it, I would recommend F5. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use it as a load balancer.

We have always used it and never had any issues with it.

The most valuable feature is being able to manipulate the iRules, so you can send traffic to different avenues.

The auto logout feature after three minutes is terrible. I wish they would make that longer, since it is not a feature that we can change.

It contributes to our traffic by about fifty percent. That's why we love it. We have never had any issues.

We put a lot of stress on our F5 on-premise. We have support, which is great. It is a ten out of ten.

We have over 12 applications that we use it for with about 300 servers which are connected up using this load balancer. 

We're a big company. We do like the on-premise version. However, we are looking into AWS servers to help us scale for larger avenues as well.

We reached out to the technical support a few times, and they are great. They are a ten out of ten.

The integration and configuration are great. When I need to make changes, I have been fine.

We are currently using the Terraform Infrastructure as Code. Therefore, we are using the F5 provider to create new nodes, pools, and purchase servers, and the integration has been seamless for us.

We are going to the AWS Marketplace because purchasing there is simple to do. We are looking for the ease it provides. We have tried other providers, but it wasn't as good.

We did not evaluate anything else.

Take advantage of it and use it.

We use the on-premise version of this product. We are looking into moving over to the AWS version.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

Some of our clients use it as a load balancer. It can also be used as a web application firewall to protect your web-based applications from attacks.

The most valuable feature is the proxy. It is set up as a reverse proxy in front of the server. This feature allows me to do anything with the traffic, such as inspecting it. Most other solutions don't provide you with this capability.

This solution allows you to write scripts that can run on F5 devices. These scripts can be used to monitor traffic and look for keywords, and then perform a corresponding action such as blocking or allowing the request, or giving the user an error.

Big IP supports load balancing from network layer four up to layer seven.

More training should be available to customers. There is a guide that is available on the internet, but the training is not as good as others, such as Cisco. While F5 does have a big market share, it is not easy to find a well-training F5 engineer. If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better.

I have been working with F5 BIG-IP for five years.

This product is very stable. I have seen some instability with newly released versions, so I normally wait for a stable release before I upgrade an older one.

I have often been in touch with technical support and most of the time they are good. The response time is usually about one hour, although if it is a priority one issue then they will respond within 40 minutes at the maximum.

The initial setup is straightforward. If the analysis is already complete then it should only take five or ten minutes to deploy.

When you purchase the virtual edition or the hardware, it comes with the base license. There are additional costs depending on what modules or what functionality is required.

I consider F5 to be my network within my network because the traffic has to go through it. This includes things like the load balancer.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to learn and understand the architecture of the device. It will do very well for you if you understand it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We mainly use this solution for application delivery and application security - the product is used on a daily basis. We are partners of F5 and I'm the head of IT infrastructure. 

The application firewall is a very good feature. 

The policies management could be improved, that's why I'm doing a comparison of other solutions. This is also a very expensive solution. 

I'd like to see external loading included as part of the solution. 

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable overall. 

This solution is scalable. 

The technical support is very good. 

Deployment time depends on the size of the organization. In some places it takes a week or two; in others it can take three months. There is very little maintenance required but if necessary we do it ourselves. We do upgrades ourselves and maybe rely on technical support once a year. 

Everything is included in the license fee but it's a very expensive solution. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. If it were less expensive I'd rate it higher. 

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.

The anti-bot protection is very good. They are able to see bots from their system quite well. It has helped our customers to filter real traffic from fake and allows the real traffic to access the application. With the profile provided, you can block many new scans and scripts that are constantly generating traffic to their web service.

When you create an autofile, its profile takes a long time to generate the view in the VIP. That is probably due to the performance of the device, however, when you load a specific profile, the browser takes more than one minute to show the information. 

The web interface could be better.

The solution should allow for the creation of custom signatures. Right now, I see that can be a little bit complicated to create new or personal signatures in the VIP.

The way that policies are created should make it easier to maintain the solution. 

The product needs to implement some kind of artificial intelligence or machine learning that can start to generate fewer false positive requests. We tend to have a lot of false positives. The policy should be created in such a way as to help lower false positives.

There should be better reporting. Our customers ask us for reports quite often. It would be ideal if the solution itself was able to generate various types of reports for them instead. 

I've been working with the solution since 2014.

This year, we had a couple of issues. We found some bugs in version 15. They are very good, however, at finding the issue and generating a hotfix quickly so that we can apply the hotfix to the device. In the general, I would say that version 15 has been very stable overall.

Whether you can scale easily or not depends on the device and the sizing. For example, if you have an E 2000 or I 4000, you might have a lot of traffic and the device cannot handle it very well. Scalability with the performance was the one issue that affected us this year.

Most of the customers that we have are enterprises. They are banking and insurance customers. They're quite large, which is why we need the scalability that we do.

We always use technical support and the team helps us very well. They're able to effectively find and fix issues and they respond very quickly. We're quite satisfied with their level of service overall.

We also work with Palo Alto firewalls. I've worked with Check Point as well.

The initial setup is not too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

It's straightforward to create a new policy or a new postulate or a new deployment. It takes a couple of minutes to create a new deployment and it's rather easy to do so.

We're a reseller for Enterprise companies such as Banking and Retail.

I'd advise that if a customer wants to implement this product, that they find a partner they can have a strong relationship with. The partner needs to be able to effectively implement the product and train your staff on the proper usage. That is, of course, if the client wants to manage it themselves in the long run.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If they could improve their web interface, generate reports, and have all the configuration on a single page on the platform, I'd rank it a bit higher.