Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
yogendra pal <jntupal@gmail.com> Wed, 14 September 2016 05:34 UTC
Return-Path: <jntupal@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB7212B1D1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jnR5hKxWceO5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 315AB12B069 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 1so8851968wmz.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gHeFAzz/otmYcggQDy4aUSz0VGfcdApOVX10ws43X/Q=; b=br93R5JxCK9o2ro9NYG0I9GLQGz8FX95d2BGKRlw2sEvV3INCLX4YjClREP9hv9dIu bN7T36QFD41hhycrntPeOC6xSJhaTt/FwMbquZXQrmxcgh0avQ7BMcOpd7EPWDnkUVAH bfrhy7EVkKE2ZZrPjUQJgDEz5fPDC4BUxHwumvIYMBf91YQqzWScwMjHYqRhj0Ci78tW o1ANcJeo7jDiMXLd+Bi2r3wKAd++/BD/I9fVRvpqWy8B3la1BHFavcI95nlnQZDV4joa uwWWDYXtA9U8YCnpLmLghIe9fCaZtLsL5dxXtmWFMPNcYOC1AjRuW48EF4qIYl/7cqu0 WqeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gHeFAzz/otmYcggQDy4aUSz0VGfcdApOVX10ws43X/Q=; b=jE1te/YH+DR5cnX2MHIOHNRo3ePRcmu2bJ6enWyuNoyjaj6yYUm7cE+siAl7hBWoBv aJPOYaN/PuCS/PalbWfgP2OZ5cbViwGRk+ftkz+orl5fSA/c6Hx81l/OM14krBqle71S BK2in7PWA+YDAES+81Pxg4r3tYeD1HHCOsUQEYGl6H8zQNlRcKcXwEZ1S1Nr95hBawMF A8L6KCIN/OxKHD1QROjjiy6Wyw94kjAuTLz8722X+QvWvXsZOUVXoB2sjwOGR9AZUqSb 1tL8tRfxy2QSR0UsFjchTnf3khwbRXyrYHxYmD/M6NEYguX0TIJIqNaSXQ/pSk2ms/e7 Q4UA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNHswBV3Y3WeWEmKFR2cOmdxxZ4bEyRWvfDIqloA9uNdwY6Rw5utxnkSPh5XSgZfX85aBxf7VVKU3Utew==
X-Received: by 10.28.168.151 with SMTP id r145mr9207982wme.93.1473831255621; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.131.34 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFx+hENvg_CeBh0Sxn+-ynTY0oT-wJ3pD9X_CoW2VYpBwQa_LA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <58B66897-2F0D-4916-AF5A-42D5DC172DE5@cisco.com> <CAFx+hEPS+c1-d9TyOccLdhjDtBUots4LuXdDi6iV6ECaReb9eQ@mail.gmail.com> <313807947.869636.1473340159086.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> <CAFx+hENvg_CeBh0Sxn+-ynTY0oT-wJ3pD9X_CoW2VYpBwQa_LA@mail.gmail.com>
From: yogendra pal <jntupal@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:04:14 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+dB4X51=6VMyovihDqCGAvgQ9LK6R1w7LT_c6NooyKE6WoyYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c09587344e4053c711457"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/7l9j_oVicIct4PTFN5bam-Muis8>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:34:20 -0000
Tomek/Bernie, Given this draft is in very much detailed and focused w/ HA design. I would request if we can extend the WGLC for another date (21st). I have started reading it and will be finishing mid of next week. Thanks, Yogendra Pal On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:31 AM, tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for explaining this point. It does seem like the desirable > method, and a /64 is sufficient enough for address allocation, so I > guess there's no need to address rebalancing. > > Thanks, > Tianxiang > > 2016-09-08 21:09 GMT+08:00 perl-list <perl-list@network1.net>: > >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"tianxiang li" <peter416733@gmail.com> >> *To: *"Kim Kinnear" <kkinnear@cisco.com> >> *Cc: *"dhcwg" <dhcwg@ietf.org> >> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:37:06 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE >> >> 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? >> >> >> I read this section as just a codifying of what we do now without >> failover. We put half the /64 on the "primary" and half on the >> "secondary". It provides for some enhanced behavior where clients won't >> need to get a new address in the case of server failure as the remaining >> server can renew addresses. Also, you wouldn't need to do any math as the >> server would arithmetically split in half for you any subnets that are >> marked for this behavior. If offered a choice in the future, I would >> probably choose this method as it is the simplest. >> >> Also, this bit here: "It also assumes that the pool assigned to each >> server will never deplete." negates your comment about addresses becoming >> scarce. It is highly recommended (by all articles and documentation that >> I've seen) that all end networks be configured as /64 subnets. There are >> quite a lot of addresses in a /64. More than are in the entire IPv4 >> address space, is my understanding. It is unlikely that a /64 will >> experience IP address scarcity. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > >
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE 神明達哉
- [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Kim Kinnear
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE perl-list
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Lewis Donzis
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Karsten Krone (kkrone)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Simon Hobson
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE 神明達哉
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Kim Kinnear
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE tianxiang li
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE perl-list
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE tianxiang li
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE yogendra pal
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE Kim Kinnear