On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcar...@network1.net>wrote:
> We have a requirement for it to be a redundant server that is centrally > located. DHCPv6 will be relayed from each customer access segment. > > We have been looking at using ISC dhcpd, as that is what we use for v4. > However, it currently does not support any redundancy. > [snip] When you say you require redundant DHCPD, what do you mean by that? The DHCP protocol is mostly stateless, aside from offers made, which are stored persistently in a database. Therefore, you can cluster the DHCPD daemon, without modifications to the ISC DHCPD software. There is no shortage of cluster management software that is up to the task of keeping a service active on an active node, and keeping the service inactive on a standby (or failed) node. Achieving redundancy against DHCPD failure is mostly a design and configuration question, not a matter of "finding a DHCPD implementation" that has redundancy. If by redundancy you mean active/active pair of servers, for load balancing rather than failover, that implies DHCP servers with non-overlapping pools to assign from, and is generally a much more complicated objective to achieve with DHCP whether v4 or v6. -- -JH
