How are you doing DHCPv6 ?

Jimmy Hess 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.
>
[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


More information about the NANOG mailing list