Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

Hi,

I think this a useful draft and I think it should forward. The DHCPv6
failover is an important mechanism with real network needs. It is quite a
long document and I read through part of it. I have a few comments below:

3. Glossary

“Delegable prefix: A prefix from which other prefixes may be delegated, as
described in [RFC3633].”

The term “delegable prefix” was never used in RFC3633, so maybe it should
be considered a new term defined in this particular draft?

4.2.1 Independent allocation

“In this allocation scheme, used for allocating individual IPv6 addresses,
available IPv6 addresses are permanently (until server configuration
changes) split between servers…”

If active-passive mode is used, it would mean that the addresses in the
secondary server would not be used unless the primary server fails. In that
case, wouldn’t permanently splitting the addresses between the primary and
secondary server a waste of addresses?

If the address pool in the primary server becomes scarce, wouldn’t a
rebalancing mechanism be useful?

4.2.2 Proportional Allocation

“The flow of a delegable prefix is as follows: initially the delegable
prefix is part of a larger delegable prefix, all of which are initially
owned by the primary server. A delegable prefix may be allocated to the
secondary server and then it is owned by the secondary server. Either
server can allocate and delegate prefixes out of the delegable prefixes
which they own…”

“In PARTNER-DOWN state the operational partner can delegate prefixes from
either pool (both its own, and its partner's after some time constraints
have elapsed)…”

How are the prefixes in the primary server passed on to the secondary
backup server in such a case? Should there be some text added here to
explain this?

These are my individual comments, please correct me if I misunderstood
something.

Thanks,

Tianxiang

2016-09-03 3:23 GMT+08:00 Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>:

> We are well into the second and *last* WGLC for the DHCPv6 failover
> draft:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 <
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02>
>
> If there are not enough responses to the draft for this WGLC, we will
> drop it and not try again.
>
> We have some detailed technical reviews.  What we *really* need now
> are people to just read it and say:
>
>   "I think this draft should move forward".
>
> That's all you have to do.  Any review would be nice, but we really
> just need people to read it and send in email that says "move this
> forward".
>
> This is the last chance for DHCPv6 failover.
>
> Thanks -- Kim
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>