F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Room for Improvement

AC
Senior Technical Consultant at a comms service provider with 51-200 employees

For right now, I don't have anything I would suggest in terms of improvements.

I worked mainly on the CLI. Working on the CLI on the operations level or on the configuration level is sometimes a bit complex to understand. You have to have a good background in Linux so that you can perform the necessary solutioning or operations through the CLI. Whenever we want to investigate something we need to use the CLI, however, the CLI level troubleshooting and the solutioning, it is a little bit complicated. We have a limitation when it comes to the GUI. That said, I have found that we can do much better analysis with troubleshooting over the CLI.

Scaling up is complex. 

It's expensive. 

We need to have good security features available. It's something I still need to explore more, however.

View full review »
KV
Principle Architect (retired recently) at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

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. 

View full review »
KO
Network Engineer at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees

So far, everything appears to be fine. I wouldn't be the best person to comment on something like APIs because I haven't really dug into a lot of APIs. However, I believe F5 falls a little short when it comes to APIs. But I'm not certain.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)
December 2022
Learn what your peers think about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: December 2022.
656,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.
SP
Senior ICT Solutions Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

All the cyber security vendors and their products need improvement, including F5 and this product. No one is 100% secured, because attacks are more sophisticated now, and the hackers have become more advanced.

Recently, I've seen one of the attacks on this particular network, where they managed to bypass its multi-factor authentication. They were able to bypass that level of security, and they managed to get into the network.

Every cyber security vendor needs to be proactive. No one is perfect, so even the rank one cyber security vendors should also keep their eyes open all the time.

It would also be better if F5 provided free product training for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), so end customers could have more awareness and understanding of the product, so they'll know how to use it.

Our level of requirements, usage, and scalability are being met by this product. If we needed additional features, or if we needed additional licenses, all we need to do is just buy the additional features or licenses, so we currently don't have any additional features we'd like to be included in the next version of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

View full review »
Sanja Rakic - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees

I can't say that there are any features missing. I've overall been quite happy with it.

We once had an issue related to trying to publish some exchange application to a file and we experienced some problems there, however, the incident was not really related to BIG-IP. It was likely some kind of infrastructure problem the company was experiencing.

We haven't had any big problems of note.

Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future.

The pricing could be more reasonable.

View full review »
JO
Senior Network Engineer at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees

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.

View full review »
LM
Sr. Network Engineer at a computer software company with 201-500 employees

The solution could improve the documentation.

View full review »
KO
Network Engineer at a media company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved.

View full review »
MC
Chief Information Officer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees

The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive.

It would be ideal if they offered integration with NGINX. They purchased NGINX as well. Therefore, if it's got integration with NGINX, then you kind of have one single pane of a console for all the F5/NGINX portions of your work. 

View full review »
MM
Lead Network Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Technical support could be improved.

View full review »
KS
Senior Security Specialist at Tech Mahindra Limited

The major drawback is it has lot of options nested inside, and each option has a lot of options. I'm not sure who might be using all those options or even some (limited) good options. They should pare everything down.

It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it. Creating virtual servers, managing pools, and nodes until it is working on WAF side of it becomes difficult while writing the irules.

Another drawback is we are using a physical appliance. It becomes very slow and unresponsive. Even logs cannot load on the box to troubleshoot. It overwrites the logs. They need to do something in log storage locally on this box in the next release.

View full review »
OD
Design and Conception Engineer at SFR

There are some aspects of F5 BIG-IP that could be improved, the main one being virtual machine support. We have seen that even with the virtual editions, there are some things that we would like to do that are currently not possible with virtual machines.

We have seen some problems mainly with F5 BIG-IP ASM, and so I think the virtual editions of the ASM could be improved.

Another negative aspect is the cost, as it can be expensive.

View full review »
MK
Channel Development Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

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. 

View full review »
Richard Polyak - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Architect Individual Contributor at a media company with 10,001+ employees

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. 

View full review »
OMKaewsaenchai - PeerSpot reviewer
Total Solution System Engineer at a comms service provider with 201-500 employees

F5 could improve the rule-setting capabilities in the GUI, and they need to simplify web management. For example, the menus in the Citrix GUI are easier to navigate, with a clean structure and layout. It helps you navigate and find what you're looking for, but some of the menus in the F5 GUI are not very intuitive. You're doing the same task, but sometimes it's on the left, sometimes on the right, etc. It should all be on the same setup group menu or something like that. 

View full review »
Michael-Yuen - PeerSpot reviewer
COO at International Household Retail Company Ltd

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing.

When I was using the solution I was using the basic functions and I found it difficult to handle some of the more advanced features. I needed assistance from my IT department or the vendors themself. There should be more workshops are places to gain knowledge on how to use the solution. You need specific skill sets to use it.

View full review »
YA
Co-Founder and CEO at PT Eugenea Kreasi Utama

The deployment could be simplified. From a technical perspective, it is complex.

The pricing could be reduced. 

View full review »
ST
Director at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function.

Its scalability and pricing can also be improved.

View full review »
AhmedYoussef1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Security Consultant at Westcon-Comstor

F5 BIG-IP LTM can improve on the SSL loading which includes the authentication of certificates. Although, most of these issues have been solved there are still some issue that persists.

In a feature release, it would be helpful to have real-time packet features in the GUI.

View full review »
KN
Service Delivery Engineer - Network Security Lead at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive.

View full review »
SaurabhPal - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Specialist - Network & Security at a tech services company with 201-500 employees

Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking.

View full review »
Nirav_Shah - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solutions Architect at MindTree

In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5.

We need a very large team to manage the solution. Had it been cloud native, it would have been very seamless, but because it's not cloud native, it does not integrate really well.

View full review »
MD
Senior Network Engineer at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems.

Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version.

View full review »
WM
Network and Security Engineer at a logistics company with 1,001-5,000 employees

The price for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very high. This aspect could be improved.

View full review »
YU
Security Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees

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.

View full review »
AR
Sr. SAP Portfolio Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based.

View full review »
Rana Mohamed - PeerSpot reviewer
Product Manager at MCS

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.

View full review »
Priyesh MP - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at Softcell Technologies Limited

Right now, there are a lot of products within F5's portfolio. They acquired a couple of companies like NGINX and Volterra. Some features and technologies overlapped when this acquisition occurred. They need to refine it and come up with a single, proper solution.
F5 should focus more on zero trust network access (ZTNA).They should be more focused on that framework because the industry is moving towards that. Everyone is talking about SASE and zero trust.

View full review »
PradeepKumar11 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees

We are currently using BIG-IP and NetScaler and we wanted to have just one technology. We will be replacing F5 in March.

NetScaler is primarily used for Citrix purposes and BIG-IP is being used as a reverse proxy for our other applications.  We would like to manage it easily with one technology.

I would like to see better integration. I can remember when we were implementing ADFS, we had some challenges.

There is not a lot of documentation available where you can refer to and configure any new technologies.

View full review »
UzochikwaEnunwa - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise architect at Kyndryl

It would be good to have better traffic and better data. It would be nice to have more granularity to see packets in terms of the header details, the analytics, etc. It would be nice if that was also part of it and to have analytics added to the traffic.

View full review »
Satish Agarwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Engineer at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

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.

View full review »
SM
Specialist in Communication and Network Security at a security firm with 11-50 employees

F5 has another solution to load balance servers on the cloud, which they got after the purchase of NGINX. It is deployed as Kubernetes or something like that, but the problem now is that they have two solutions for two situations. They should make F5 deployable on the cloud.

Recently, we were investigating offloading SSL as version TLS 1.3. I am not sure if we were able to do that or not.

View full review »
CS
Associate CSA at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

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

View full review »
Hilman Gunawan - PeerSpot reviewer
System Engineer at PT Nusantara Compnet Integrator

To improve the product, they could add more load balancing solutions in Kubernetes.

View full review »
Oren Dror - PeerSpot reviewer
Security IT Manager at IFAT Group

The pricing of the product is a bit too high. They should work to make it more affordable. It needs to be more cost-efficient. 

View full review »
MufeedSiaj - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Security Presales Engineer at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

BIG-IP LTM's sandboxing integration could be improved.

View full review »
Md. Robiul Awoul - PeerSpot reviewer
Deputy manager at Oculin Tech

There are not very many areas for improvement, but the price is high.

View full review »
AhmedIsmael - PeerSpot reviewer
Network & Telecom Manager at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees

Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy.

View full review »
TB
Solutions Architect - Telecom & Network Infrastructure at a non-tech company with 501-1,000 employees

We use a limited amount of features so the biggest issue for us is the price. For what we're using, it's an expensive solution. 

View full review »
JM
Technology Analyst at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

The configuration is intricate and could be improved. 

For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)
December 2022
Learn what your peers think about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: December 2022.
656,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.