On 1/17/12 6:37 PM, "Daniel Roesen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote: >> > You might want to give this a read: >> > >> > >>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt >> >> That doesn't really help us if we want to deploy before that draft >> becomes a standard. > >Well, it more or less just presents options (workarounds for missing >proper HA sync). [jjmb] correct. FWIW the IETF dhcwg is currently working on DHCPv6 failover/redundancy. See here for the requirements: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements -00 > >> Are there any DHCPv6 servers currently that actually function in a >> fashion that is suitable for service providers? > >Without specifying your requirements, that's hard to say. If you're >looking for fully state-sync'ed DHCPv6 server HA, I'm not aware of any. [jjmb] same here, I expect a specification would be required first. > >Cisco unfortunately pushed that another year into the future for CNR, so >we're resorting for now to the "Split Prefixes" model described in >abovementioned draft, effectively halving our DHCPv6-PD pools and thus >exacerbates the negative effects of RIPE's overly converservative >policy (HD-Ratio 0.94) on IPv6 by effectively stealing one bit (half >the address space) just for redundancy. :-( [jjmb] we have to do what we have to do, the good news migration to a proper failover model should be straight forward. > >Best regards, >Daniel > >-- >CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 >
