LTM Active/Active vs Active/Standby?
Hi I'm currently in the process of deploying several pairs of LTMs as HA pairs and am looking at the pros and cons of running an Active/Active vs Active/Standby configuration. I've had a read around and from what I understand the Active/Active mode of operation is based on associating VIPs with traffic groups and having one traffic group active per LTM. F5 recommend running HA pairs as Active/Standby but I cant find anything that backs this up, i.e. there are no reasons given as to why this is. The only one I can really think of is that careful capacity management will need to be undertaken to ensure that each box doesnt run at over 50% of utilisation. Are there any other technical or operational reasons why LTMs should not be run as an Active/Active pair? Thanks Malcolm
Why is an Active-Active configuration not recommended by F5?
I was considering configuring our F5 LTMs in an Active/Active state within Cisco ACI but I read here that this type of configuration is not recommended without having at least one F5 in standby mode. "F5 does not recommend deploying BIP-IP systems in an Active-Active configuration without a standby device in the cluster, due to potential loss of high availability." Why is this? With two F5s in Active/Active mode, they should still fail over to each other if one happens to go down. Would it take longer for one device to fail over to another who is active rather than being truly standby?
LTM BGP announce virtual server IP from active and standby vCMP guest.
Hi we are trying to setup an active/standby routed setup. For this, we are using BGP. F5-1-----F5-2 | | SW-1-----SW-2 BGP is configured between F5-1 and SW-1, and F5-2 and SW-2. connection between SW-1 and SW-2 is l2. Everything is configured, however, the virtual server IP addresses are only announced by the active Guest. config on both devices: ip prefix-list VS-pl seq 10 permit /31 ge 32 ! route-map export_to_bgp_v4 permit 10 match ip address prefix-list VS-pl ! router bgp redistribute kernel redistribute static neighbor route-map export_to_bgp_v4 out on the standby, the statement is: neighbor route-map export_to_bgp_v4 out I would like both vCMP guests to announce the subnet, so I can use local pref to define the preferred path in my routing table. (eg: if the active is announcing the subnet, use this. otherwise, there is an immediate alternative available; the standby) when I do a sh ip bgp neighbors advertised-routes on the active Guest (F5-1), I see the F5 announcing the subnet. When I issue the same command on the standby (F5-2), I don't see the subnet of my virtual servers. This is due to the fact that my standby (F5-2), does not have this in it's kernel routing table. Am I doing something wrong here? The reason why I ask is that I don't want 4 bgp sessions, just the square and now, when a failover happens, I have downtime, as the standby has to announce the virtual server IPs to it's neigbour. Thanks in advance for any help! With kind regards Sybren
HA Active/Standby issue
Greetings all I have recently configured 2 f5 LTM 2000S running 11.2.1 with Active/Standby HA redundancy. The issue I'm currently facing is that the nodes on Unit 1 remains online even when the unit is on standby. While on Unit 2, even when it's active - the nodes are offline. The only time the nodes on Unit 2 goes online is when i fully reboot Unit 1. I always thought that when i set Unit 1 as standby, by right the nodes should go off while on Unit 2, it comes on. I'm not sure if I'm missing something in my config. Any comments on this one ? ThanksIs there a way to change which one of my F5s is the 'Active' server in my HA cluster?
Currently I have F5-A and F5-B. I want F5-A to be the active F5 in my HA cluster, however it is currently the standby. What I have: F5-B: Active F5-A: Standby What I want: F5-A: Active F5-B: Standby How can I achieve this without taking them out of the HA cluster? Or will I have to take them out of the cluster and then put them back in?
