How are you doing DHCPv6 ?

Wed Jan 18 00:31:25 UTC 2012

On 1/17/12 6:37 PM, "Daniel Roesen" <dr at cluenet.de> 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: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>