[148735] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Fri Jan 20 21:00:38 2012
In-Reply-To: <52477a71-0a98-445b-a083-1844d37ac71e@zimbra.network1.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:59:48 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@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
