We´re evaluating some features about 11.X version on F5. Our main interest is focused on active/active issue. ASM, LTM and Web Accelerator modules are installed on our F5 devices deployment, and also redundancy Active/Standby. We wonder if enabling Active/active redundancy would be a good idea to take advantage of the complete F5 HW capacities in a better way than using active/stanby feature...
-Do you recommend Active/Active redundancy on version 11.X F5s, considering our current deployment (ASM+LTM+Webacc...)?
-Is supported Mac-masquerading using 11.X version? I was said that Mac masquerading isn´t supported on our current 10.X version!
Alas, we couldn´t test most of these skills with the trial version, so we need your opinion about it.
I looking forward to hearing from you soon.
A Diezma (El Patanata).
Asensio Pradas (Coordinante)
Does synchronization between units, in an active/active deployment on 11.x version, erase peer configurations? Should Peer configuration of each unit manually be managed, instead of Using Peer synchronization?.
I was heard information about a new feature: "Sincrhonization to Group".... Is this the key solution of the related problem above?
Well in order to keep the box in active active situation you should let us know which model of BIG-IP are you using and how much is the layer 4 throughput that you network need, it is recommended to keep the boxes in Active/Standby situation in most of the deployments??? Mac-masquerading is supported on 11.x so that won't be an issue for you? Regarding the configuration getting erased it depend if you are doing the pull or push for the configuration on the box. I hope you have your answers.
You can talk with your F5 SE or partner to get eval keys for v11 which include all modules. I'd also have a chat with them about whether v11 clustering would work well for your scenario.