> Now I was trying to figure out if and how I could configure failover for IPv6 dhcpd, but I�1rym a little confused about the current status, can someone tell me:
> * what is the current status for ipv6 dhcpd failover
It is not implemented in the ISC DHCP code. Furthermore, as far as I
know, the specifications for IPv6 DHCP failover are not ready yet.
>> Now I was trying to figure out if and how I could configure failover for IPv6 dhcpd, but I?$,1rym a little confused about the current status, can someone tell me:
>> * what is the current status for ipv6 dhcpd failover
>It is not implemented in the ISC DHCP code. Furthermore, as far as I
>know, the specifications for IPv6 DHCP failover are not ready yet.
>Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [hidden email] _______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
The first document is published as RFC 7031. The second document is from
March 2015, and is not yet an RFC.
I can't speak for ISC. However, I'm reasonably certain that they won't
be implementing DHCPv6 failover until the protocol design is "stable",
for some value of stable. I don't believe we're quite there yet...
>> I was afraid for that answer :-(
>> Are there in the meantime any work-arounds to have some kind of a redundancy, how are Internet providers solving this problem, or aren$,1ryt they?
> There are no solutions today (that I know of) if you need customers to
> *keep the same IPv6 addresses* in a failover scenario.
If you are able to pre-allocate the addresses to each client (i.e. you
know the identity of all clients), then you can share/replicate the same
database to as many independent DHCPv6 servers as you like.
And if you don't know the identity of the clients, then then the next
paragraph will likely apply:
> If you *don't* need the customers to keep the same addresses: Simply
> configure two (or more) DHCPv6 servers with non-overlapping address
> pools. IPv6 addresses are not a scarce resource...
Exactly. You don't need failover unless you want to share a dynamically
managed address pool with fewer addresses than clients. And why would
you want to do that with IPv6?
Take into account the necessary complexity of a failover solution, and I
think you have the explanation why this isn't implememted. And IMHO
probably never will be.