Exchange 2013 load balancing per preferred architecture

Thanks for your quick reply, Dayne.

Regarding question 1: given that the Client Access Server proxies traffic to the mailbox server that contains the active copy of a user's mailbox, I would want to preserve the availability of the protocols that are part of the CAS role, which would potentially handle any user's requests, and let Exchange (and my monitoring solution) deal with the availability of mailbox databases. I wouldn't want to take a whole server, or even a protocol service, out of availability because a test user's database was offline. My implementation will involve over two hundred mailbox databases.

2: OK, that's good to know.

3: The discussion we're having is regarding the complexities of SSL offload, SNAT, header manipulation, etc. as compared to the relative simplicity of nPATH. Since Microsft describes a methodology for preserving per-protocol availability while still leveraging Layer 4 load balancing, that's an attractive route. If there are limitations other than compatibility with additional BIG-IP products, I'd love to know about them soon.

4: I acknowledge your point that a configuration tool can save time and money. We have a concern about tools and wizards that hide complexity, especially when we need to troubleshoot things and we find that we don't understand how they work.

Clearly, I have a lot more reading and testing to do.

Again, thanks for your response, Dayne. It's very helpful.