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 <d...@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: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 > >
