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