How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
mysidia at gmail.com
Fri Jan 20 19:59:48 CST 2012
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at 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.
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
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
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.
More information about the NANOG