Nimbostratus
NimbostratusIt can work, but why bother? I assume that you prefer to keep the number of interfaces to a minimum. It's better to not use the management-plane for TMM operational purpose. I suppose that for network failover and config-sync features alone, it's a less significant of a choice that ultimately comes down to a matter of preference. On the other hand, for the more resource-intensive HA features (traffic mirror/sub-table mirror/persistence mirror) it's a matter of right and wrong.
So I'd recommend to avoid using the mgmt interface for HA :)
Tip: Use the non-routable IPv6 link-local addresses for HA SelfIP purpose. You can re-use the same addresses for all your BigIP implementations, regardless of network design. (very easy to automate, one less variable to consider)
NimbostratusThanks for your recommendations. But i´d actually need to test HA using only management addresses because we don´t want production vlans to be asigned to these guests (model guests). The only way to connect for failover two F5s without vlans is through management interfaces, isn´t it?. We only need to test an upgrade to 11.5.4 in a traffic group with 2 F5s, both without vlans. The objetive is to conclude that the configuation files are fully compatible in both image versions. I hope this can be more clarifier. Regards.
NimbostratusAlright. Go ahead :)