DHCPv6 failover protocol?

[John Jason Brzozowski]

I would disagree, as someone who is directly involved with a large  
scale deployment leveraging DHCPv6.  If some form of load balancing is  
not in place then one server carries more of the burden that others in  
a cluster of DHCPv6 servers.  At this time I leverage a specific  
configuration where:

* prefixes overlap but ranges do not
* each server is configured with a different preference

This creates some notion of hierarchy amongst servers and this also  
does not address the issue of what happens when one or more servers go  
down.  The latter is less of an issue with regards to DHCPv6 clients  
themselves.  An issue remains with regards to any back office  
applications  that rely on DHCP servers for authoritative information.

John
===============================================
John Jason Brzozowski
jjmb at jjmb.com
(p) 484-994-6787
(f) 610-616-4535
===============================================

On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:02 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 06:30:01PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> You mean DHCPv6 load balancing?   Yes, that seems more likely.    
>> Because
>
> No.  I'm not even sure an explicit protocol or algorithm for load
> balancing is necessary (just have the servers emit different priotiy
> options, no magic).  I think load balancing is a bit more likely to be
> needed than failover tho, I'll give you that.
>
> -- 
> David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
> Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users