CumulonimbusExample situation: A user access goes through two chained LTM devices (the first on v11.3.0, the second on v10.2.4), both virtual servers (in Partiton A and Partiton B respectively) each setting its own persistence cookie.
My questions are:
Will these cookies, in different formats, work in this situation?
If this does indeed work, will there be any performance penalty?
Employeei think cookie encoding is still same but pool members (of the 1st and 2nd ltm) are different, aren't they? just wondering what you expect.
sol6917: Overview of BIG-IP persistence cookie encoding
http://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/solutions/public/6000/900/sol6917.html
NimbostratusThe main issue we ran into with standard cookie persistence is using the same pool name on both sets of chained devices. We had problems with them overwriting each other.
Format is:
BIGipServerPoolName=9999999999.99999.0000To solve this, we just put a prefix on one of the pools. (We call the pairs, ecom and internal, so the ecom unit gets 'e-' on all of it's Virtual Server and Pool objects).
Edited to correct cookie name