[148526] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brzozowski, John)
Tue Jan 17 19:32:27 2012
From: "Brzozowski, John" <John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com>
To: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:31:25 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20120117233701.GA13633@srv03.cluenet.de>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/17/12 6:37 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:
>> >=20
>> > =20
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt
>>=20
>> 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
>
>--=20
>CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>
