[148523] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PC)
Tue Jan 17 18:59:49 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120117233701.GA13633@srv03.cluenet.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:58:52 -0700
From: PC <paul4004@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The good news is that doubling your IP address allocation requirements for
v6 is far better than doubling v4...
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Daniel Roesen <dr@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).
>
> > 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.
>
> 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. :-(
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>
>
