F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition Reviews

I use it in the IT environment in Brazil for a financial bank in Latin America. 

We're primarily using BIG-IP LTM across our data centers, employing it for global load balancing with GTM. This setup is crucial for our operations in Mexican, Colombia, and Brazil as well.

The biggest impact is in security solutions, for example, with HCM, which is recognized in the Gartner. We use BIG-IP for cloud security and branch management in the cloud.

Moreover, the integration with other networks or security solutions improves the infrastructure.

In Brazil, within the government environment, we use BIG-IP for load balancing and another solution as a proxy, which is called Blue Coat. 

We utilize BIG-IP, for example, for load balancing. The VPN model we use is called ARC. The first solution connecting with BIG-IP is very effective.

The features that I like include LTM and Global Traffic Manager (GTM).

BIG-IP could improve in supporting microservices, for example, in Docker and Kubernetes environments. 

Accessing and load balancing with Docker and Kubernetes is becoming more common in financial banks to scale services globally.

I have been using it for many years. 

The stability is 50-50 because the environment has a lot of connections, which influences stability. For example, the VM in the environment sometimes becomes unstable, particularly the connection. In such cases, we need to decrease the connections within the environment.

Scalability is easier to manage because it's possible to scale up big clusters, both in cloud-based and enterprise environments. So, it caters well to new business segments.

There are 8,000 end users in the company.

My impression of the support team is mixed; sometimes good, sometimes bad. For example, when I raised a ticket for an IMEI issue and needed to replace BIG-IP, it failed. No problem, this process is very easy for replacing the software. So, I had a complex problem in my environment. The standard package was not satisfactory.

I used a different solution, but its performance was very bad in comparison to F5 BIG-IP.

The initial setup is 50% complex and 50% easy because I had to follow a lot of steps. It wasn't that simple. 

In our environment, it is 90% in AWS. I use BIG-IP in the cloud, where the cloud fronts are AWS, Columbia, and Brazil, creating the infrastructure.

The pricing is standard. 

The pricing is moderate,  not too expensive, and not too cheap. For a small company, it might be considered very expensive.

I would recommend using this solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use it for two applications.

I've also used the Virtual Edition in the network core alongside the hardware appliances. I don't think there's any issue with either. Both seem to be working well simultaneously.

It's easy to integrate with others. I've integrated it with McAfee Solutions, Aruba NAC, and the EMS tool from Micro Focus.

It's easily manageable with various solutions.

I like the virtualization aspect, similar to what you get with cloud services or VMware.

I have a specific issue with the network interface connector, the NIC.

We're limited to a maximum of two NICs in a virtualized environment. It's a limitation of the tool.

So, Network Interface Connectors (NICs) need to be improved. More NICs would be helpful.

I have been using it for three months. I use the latest version. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

No issues with scalability. Virtual Edition handles traffic spikes.

The main difference between the Virtual Edition and the hardware is that you run the F5 image on VMware or any other cloud platform. In my experience, I haven't faced any issues with scalability or manageability due to virtualization. It's been good.

In our IT department, no one uses the Virtual Edition for F5. However, our customers use the Virtual Edition.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

We were using the hardware initially because it was too expensive for our client. That's why they wanted to go with the BIG-IP Virtual Edition.

There weren't any major issues with the deployment, but it wasn't completely seamless. 

Virtual Edition required some additional work compared to hardware, like provisioning and sizing tasks. 

However, once configured, it's easy to scale by increasing the VM size.

VM size adjustments weren't difficult, but it's not as straightforward as hardware deployment. 

The deployment time depends on the configuration. It might take one day or one hour, depending on the number of applications that need to be configured. 

My company is a system integrator.

It is a yearly-based license. I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

We had Redware and Palo Alto. 

We had limitations in Redware with the number of virtual servers and tools. F5 doesn't have those limitations. 

Plus, for security, we can configure policy profiles across layers 3, 4, 7, and even 2. F5 also has persistence and separate mechanisms for things like server acceleration.  

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

The tool's investment is less than a physical device. 

The tool has limitations with respect to code and RAM. 

I have been working with the solution for four to five months. 

The solution is not as stable as a physical device. It has dependencies on the physical server as well. 

Technical support is expensive. They offer advanced service only when you purchase a full solution. 

F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's deployment is complex. The deployment timeline can vary between 4 days to one week. 

I rate the product a seven out of ten.