[148527] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Carpenter)
Tue Jan 17 20:02:42 2012
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:01:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
To: John Brzozowski <John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB3B7C6F.1D78E5%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
>
> 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:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>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
I already had the two documents up and got them mixed up when I was reading through them. I'll have to go over the link from John in detail, and see if it gives us some ways to work around the limitations in our situation.
thanks,
-Randy
