My main use cases for using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition are mainly WAF. That's the main purpose.
We use F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition mostly for the login functionality with our Salesforce and for security login purposes.
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition - GOOD (PAYG, 200Mbps)
F5, Inc. | 17.5.1-0.0.7Linux/Unix, CentOS 7.3 - 64-bit Amazon Machine Image (AMI)
External reviews
18 reviews
from
and
External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Focuses on securing application access with dependable integration
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
The features I appreciate the most about F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition are the WAF capabilities.
The advanced web application firewall protection and SSL offloading capabilities of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition have been utilized in my organization. These features are contributing to our application security and compliance posture.
What needs improvement?
I find it too complex to assess the impact of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's automated deployment and integration with container orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and OpenShift, on my applications delivery speed and reliability.
I don't use F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's automated deployment and integration with container orchestration platforms such as Kubernetes and OpenShift.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition for about five to six years, possibly longer.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is stable and reliable. I have not experienced any stability or reliability issues with the solution.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition scales with us as we are continuously expanding the deals of the product.
The solution is performing well and keeping up with our needs as we continue to increase our usage.
How are customer service and support?
I do not use customer service and technical support directly with F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. We have an integrator called Spider. They are satisfactory and whenever they encounter issues, they open a case with F5 and assist us.
I would rate the customer success and technical support for F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition an eight out of ten.
What was our ROI?
I have no idea about the ROI from using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. We use the technology on the technical side, not on the financial aspects.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I don't have information about the pricing, setup costs, or licensing for F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
What other advice do I have?
I do not use the load balancing and traffic management features of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
I use other container orchestration platforms, but they are not relevant to F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
I have utilized F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's ability to integrate with cloud platforms including AWS, Azure, GCP, and Salesforce.
I have no idea how this integration has helped my organization manage hybrid or multi-cloud environments.
The seamless integration of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition with existing F5 technologies is not important to me as I do not use other technologies from F5.
Financially, we require F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition because we need the product. We don't have anything else that performs the same functions, so we use it without trying alternatives.
I just use and manage F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition, though I didn't handle its deployment.
I would recommend F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition as a solution to others.
I would rate F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition an eight out of ten overall.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Omit
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Other
Offers easy-to-use integration capabilities
What is our primary use case?
I use the solution in my company to meet the virtualization needs of our customers. In the case of a payment gateway, according to the application, every VirtualBox gets segregated. Every VirtualBox will have multiple banks connected to one particular vCMP for a specific application.
What is most valuable?
The solution's most valuable feature is its good virtualization concepts. My company is very happy with all the basic features of the product.
What needs improvement?
On-the-go upgrades are an option that the tool currently lacks, making it an area where improvements are required. If you have an instance where you have a specific configuration of CPU memory when you want to increase it, you have to parallelly create a new instance, and you have to export and import the configurations. On the go, if you could give any option to shut down VirtualBox, increase CPUs, and start it again, that would be a good option.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition for more than four to five years.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It is a scalable solution.
In F5 BIG-IP i5800, if you have assigned a single CPU and memory for a virtual instance and if it increases, you can just add a CPU and memory to the existing vCMP. What you have to do is spin one more virtual instance with the two CPUs and double the memory, like eight GB memory, for example. You can't just increase the existing VirtualBox. You have to create another VirtualBox parallel, download the configurations, and import it.
My company provides one banking application to around ten customers. My company has around seven virtual instances and seven applications, each application having around 70 customers running on one F5 BIG-IP i5800. My company has created seven VirtualBox.
How are customer service and support?
The solution's technical support was good. Whenever my company reached out to the product's support team, we got solutions to our issue. In case an issue doesn't get solved, then it gets escalated, and the product's support team provides our company with an engineer to deal with the problem.
How was the initial setup?
The product's initial setup phase is straightforward.
The solution is deployed on an on-premises model and the cloud model. For the on-premises version, my company deployed it on something like F5 BIG-IP i5800, and for the cloud deployment, we have installed the virtualizations on Cisco CSP kind of tools. My company ensures that VirtualBox is deployed on CSP. In both the aforementioned scenarios, we have tested the tool, after which we started to use the product in the past two to three years.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
My company's customers need to make payments for the licensing charges attached to the product. It is an expensive product. As per the requirements of our company's customers, we opt for it if it is the only hosting option available. My company also needs to see which box from F5 matches the requirements of our customers.
What other advice do I have?
Speaking about the impact of the tool on the application delivery process, I can say that static routes are limited. For every vCMP, there are some limitations of VLAN IDs and static routes, like the number of routes that can be added. There are some limitations in the product that are likely to impact our company's applications.
In terms of performance and scalability features, according to the application limit, my company can add a single CPU per vCMP or two CPUs per vCMP, which is dependent on the load requirements that we plan. The company also needs to plan according to the application requirements. My company didn't face any issues following the aforementioned process.
My company provisions vCMPs based on the concurrent session support and SSL support criteria. Based on the data sheets, my company checks the total concurrent connections, SSL connections, and throughput limit. Even when my company plans to do segregations, we plan to do them according to the specifications described in the data sheets.
You need ten pieces of the tool for load balancing. If my company's customers' requirements only consist of a product that offers five features, then they can adopt a basic OEM tool. If some customers need more features in a product, my company recommends F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. Mostly our company's customers do accept our suggestions and choose F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
I recommend the product to others who plan to use it since it is a user-friendly and not-so-complex tool.
The integration capabilities of the product are easy to use, and there is no complexity involved in it.
I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
Handles traffic spikes effectively and allows configuration of policy profiles across multiple layers for enhanced security
What is our primary use case?
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.
How has it helped my organization?
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.
What is most valuable?
I like the virtualization aspect, similar to what you get with cloud services or VMware.
What needs improvement?
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.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using it for three months. I use the latest version.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I would rate the stability a seven out of ten.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
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.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
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.
How was the initial setup?
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.
What about the implementation team?
My company is a system integrator.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
It is a yearly-based license. I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being expensive.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
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.
What other advice do I have?
I would recommend using this solution. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Secure and reliable
What do you like best about the product?
It's stable, quality solution for a secure connection to your business network. The user interface is intuitive and not so complicated. But most of the time you'll need the integrator's help to set the policy as required
What do you dislike about the product?
The policy is a bit complex to understand at first you'll need guidance in your first steps but once you practiced a few times it'll be simpler
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Secure virtual connection for remote business users, secure external connection for vendors and costumers
Indeed it was good experience to deploy F5 VE in Cloud, great flexibility!
What do you like best about the product?
F5 VE in Azure deployment experience illustrated Flexibility and scalability!
What do you dislike about the product?
different approaches for HA and failover configuration in the cloud
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
F5 VE is used to solve problems wherein application hardcoding to route via LBs, no direct server to server communications. cascading flows via LB
Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule
We are using it primarily for load balancing. We also make great use of SSL interception (offloading and onloading), packet inspection, rewriting, and DNS wide IP.
How has it helped my organization?
It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature.
What is most valuable?
Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule.
What needs improvement?
I would recommend that the cost be lowered.
User tracking: Needs to provide a visual interface to follow a customer's activity (from client to BIG-IP to SNAT IP to the chosen server, then back). Today, we are still performing packet captures.
For how long have I used the solution?
Three to five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Not so far.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Not so far.
How is customer service and technical support?
So far, we have not had to contact them.
Which solutions did we use previously?
We previously used Cisco ACE, which has very limited features.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup is straightforward. The GUI interface is user-friendly.
Software upgrades have been performed by F5 teams.
What about the implementation team?
The initial migration was done by our technical team.
The last implementation was done by the F5 team. I would rate them as a nine out of 10. I am not giving a 10 because we encountered some difficulties with the software upgrade from version 11 to version 12.
What was our ROI?
ROI is four years.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
If you are planning to use security features, better to go for strong hardware and the best bundle license, which is great for web security.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Improves our program performance and security
We use it for local traffic management and for the application firewall. We are trying to deploy virtual appliances in AWS.
How has it helped my organization?
It has improved our program performance and security.
What is most valuable?
* The web application firewall.
* The configuration and integration into the AWS environment was pretty easy.
What needs improvement?
We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability is almost there. Sometimes it hangs or there are unpredictable performance issues.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It's easier to scale.
How is customer service and technical support?
Technical support could be better.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The price is high.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We looked at A10. When deciding whether to go with F5 or A10 it depends on the business requirements. Sometimes I propose one and sometimes I propose the other. It depends on the customer's requirements and budget. For our internal use we went with F5 because it's the best tool.
What other advice do I have?
The on-prem version and the AWS versions are almost the same.
In terms of the experience purchasing through AWS marketplace, because we are a partner, the way we purchase it from AWS is different. We don't buy directly from the market.
It is a central point of entry for our user base providing user authentication
We use it for brokering services.
How has it helped my organization?
It has made it a single entry point for all users, verging across all the VPCs. It is more of an SSO solution versus multitier user loggin.
What is most valuable?
* Central point of entry for our user base.
* User authentication
* PPI
* Integration with our website.
What needs improvement?
We would like to have integration into encryption and PKI integration with SafeNet. That is probably the key component in using External PKIs, letting people bring their PKIs with them. On the back-end, we have a SafeNet component. They are going to bring additional features in, so allowing integration with encryption and PKI, and tying it back into Microsoft AD in the back with an LDAP lookup for users.
For how long have I used the solution?
One to three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability seems fine. We provide fault tolerance with HA, so we have two of them up and running. We have built in integration. Therefore, we do not worry about workload issues
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It seems very scalable now. We have 200 users, going to about 10,000 within the next year. There are multiple VPCs and multiple AWS accounts.
How was the initial setup?
The integration and configuration of the product in our AWS environment seems to be pretty straightforward. There doesn't seem to be anything complex. We haven't needed anything additional, like Professional Services.
What about the implementation team?
We did use technical support on the original engineering.
What was our ROI?
We have seen ROI because we are not hosting it. We moved this to the cloud for our ingest, so our workload is moving to the cloud and Amazon.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Purchasing through the AWS Marketplace was good. We chose to go through the AWS Marketplace because everything that we needed was a soft appliance. We needed something to work in Amazon, and this product was available there.
We have found the pricing and licensing on AWS to be competitive.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We looked at F5, Citrix, and VMware. We chose F5 because it has a better market name, seemed to be vendor-agnostic for providing capabilities that others didn't, and its reputation.
What other advice do I have?
Use F5. It has a good reputation. We experienced easy implementation and had an overall good experience.
It can determine if the system is going down, then route the traffic somewhere else
We are using it for load balancing and security.
When someone requests data through the load balancer, we pull the certificate name out to identify who that person is. This is one of the things that F5 does. We haven't able to replicate this so far with the Amazon products. That is why we are going to F5.
How has it helped my organization?
It has the ability to do the security work that we need along with the current thing which is supporting the load balancer. Therefore, it can determine if the system is going down, then route the traffic somewhere else.
It does what we need.
What is most valuable?
We had a problem where customers were doing transactions in our system, pulling health records, and the system had to be shut down for maintenance. Unfortunately, we wouldn't know that the system was being shut down, and we would lose that information. Then, the customer would get upset.
Using the F5, we were able to build rules to detect that the shutdown was occurring, then begin to route people elsewhere, so we didn't have any outages or downtime. This made customers a lot happier, and it made us a lot happier.
What needs improvement?
They could improve the product's ease of use. There has been a bit of complication on some things from the admin side. There is some confusion how to operate it.
For how long have I used the solution?
One to three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I don't think too much stress placed on it. In F5 Studio, the stability been very good.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
We run 14 servers. We get up to about half a million transactions an hour, and the scalability has been good. It has not been a problem.
How is customer service and technical support?
I would rate the technical support as a five out of ten. Our admin had to learn everything and do it himself. He seems to have had difficultly at times with the tech support. However, this may be a manifestation of the fact the government bought it, but didn't buy the support.
How was the initial setup?
The integration and configuration of this product were pretty good. Once you get going, it gets easier to use.
It works with Red Hat JBoss application server, and it integrates reasonably well.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
It is sort of a commodity product. A load balancer is a load balancer. What will be, at the end of the day, the cheapest option or have the best performance, that is what it will come down to. Can it do the necessary performance that we need, and if so, is there a cheaper alternative? If not, then we'll stick with what we have.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We also evaluated some free stuff on the AWS Marketplace, or some cheaper stuff. We also looked at the Amazon offerings, like the Elastic Load Balancing.
The customer wanted to take what they had on-premise and put it in Amazon: full stop. Because we could obtain the certifications for security and the existing Amazon products didn't do 100 percent of what F5 did, they didn't want us to change any code. They just wanted us to keep going the way we were. This is the reason why we pulled F5 over.
What other advice do I have?
Try doing a proof of concept or a prototype, before you go full in on a load balancer, to make sure it does everything you need.
It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware
We use it for load balancing and routing.
How has it helped my organization?
It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware.
It integrates with various firewall and networking devices along with application services, and it works fine.
What is most valuable?
* Routing
* Load balancing
What needs improvement?
* Cloud native integration should be provided.
* Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability is great. We put our production load on it, which is very stressful.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability has been great. We have thousands of severs. F5 has scaled very well.
How is customer service and technical support?
They provide average enterprise technical support.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I also evaluated Cisco, but chose F5 because it had better features in terms of load balancing. I liked the various features in F5, including input/output routing, load balancing, and global load balancing.
What other advice do I have?
Explore the API support and integration with the open source products. Those are the key thing to analyze. F5 are the experts in their area.
showing 1 - 10