For more information regarding the security incident at F5, the actions we are taking to address it, and our ongoing efforts to protect our customers, click here.

Forum Discussion

14 Replies

  • In my opinion, if possible, try and keep it as a single iRule. Lot more easier to manage.

  • I would disagree with Vijay_E, in my option, using multiple, more concise iRules and using priority to control the order they are triggered is a much better option.

    smaller iRules are easier to manage, priority gives the control over what happens in what order

    # iRule 1
    when HTTP_REQUEST priority 10 {
        # triggered first
    }
     
    # iRule 2
    when HTTP_REQUEST priority 20 {
        # triggered second 
    }
     
     

    https://clouddocs.f5.com/api/irules/priority.html

    • Lee_Sutcliffe's avatar
      Lee_Sutcliffe
      Icon for Nacreous rankNacreous

      Could you clarify what you mean by mixed load balancing?

       

      Priority only ensures rules are executed in the preferred order.

      • mrgilchen's avatar
        mrgilchen
        Icon for Altostratus rankAltostratus

        I run 2 scripts.

        Each script check LB to get the client IP match with a pool by subnet.

        So the 2 scripts are giving me the same results.

         

        I check for client IP.

        Script1:

        set strSelectedPool [class match -value [IP::client_addr] equals "MEM-Manager-Subnet-To-Pool-Pairs"]

        pool $strSelectedPool

        Scrip2:

        set strSelectedPool [class match -value [IP::client_addr] equals "ORG-Manager-Subnet-To-Pool-Pairs"]

        pool $strSelectedPool

         

        In that case when a request comes, it will mix the pools. and get the same result.

  • Hamish's avatar
    Hamish
    Icon for Cirrocumulus rankCirrocumulus

    I'm with Lee on this one. Multiple iRules.

     

    In computers as in life, simple is best. It's more robust, easier to fix etc etc.