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