DHCPv6 failover protocol?

[Chuck Anderson]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 06:30:01PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:28 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
>> It's also quite possible we will have something very different; a
>> stateless server algorithm so that (n+1) servers can answer
>> consistently without needing to update each other.
>
> You mean DHCPv6 load balancing?   Yes, that seems more likely.   Because 
> IPv6 has address deprecation, the need for failover is unlikely to ever 
> justify the work involved in implementing it.

Does this mean long-lived TCP sessions will break when a different 
address is leased?  SHIM6 and/or SCTP could be solutions to this 
problem, but I don't think the world is as optimistic as I am about 
those.  We may need a stateful failover protocol after all.