I understand routed vs bridged mode configuration fairly well, however, I do not understand the pros/cons between using them. Can someone please provide comments and a link to describe pros and cons installing these load balancers in routed or bridged mode? I would appreciate any feed back.
Realistically, there is no pro/con to running either. ACE does not behave differntly in one vs. the other (The CSM did act differently, the CSS and ACE don't.) The choice relates to how your want to deploy the ACE within your current network configuration and how much you need/want to change.
Here are a few food for thought items:
-VLANs can be shared between contexts.
-Servers behind ACE use ACE as a gateway. That means that you have to change the subnet/gateway on your server to point directly to ACE and create a new IP subnet on the server/ACE. (note that the server would not have to be L2 adjacent necissarily, but you will need to create 2 subnets on ACE and the server should be behind one of them in a manner where all traffic to/from the server only traverses that path. If the routing behind the server has a path around the ACE, you will have to use source NAT or PBR to make sure loadbalanced flows are symetric.)
-Non-loadbalanced flows can be NATted
-Access to the servers chagnes because of the new subnet. You can configure static NAT on ace to reach the servers via the old IP's if needed - or update the routing within the network to reach the servers through ACE.
-VLANs that are bridged can not be shared between contexts.
-Servers behind ACE use the same gateway as previously. The only change to the existing topology is L2 VLANs. You will put your servers on a new L2 vlan behind ACE. ACE will bridge the new VLAN with the existing VLAN to allow traffic flow.
-Non-loadbalanced flows can not be NATted. (this is probably the only real limitiation between bridged and routed.)
-Clients can access the servers directly, the same as before the change, no special routing/natting will need to be done.