Subject: Re: DHCPv6 and multiple servers

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:53:39 -0800 (PST)

> If somebody in the future can manage to devise a platform that can
> realistically use multiple DHCP servers for a single network interface,
> and the existing protocol does not suffer harm, why do we need to make
> any specification about whether or not such a future platform does
> such a thing?  Why do we need to specify how the client resolves
> the answers?  Why do we need to explain the client's motivation?

In the future I suspect there will be a DHCPv6 server to server protocol
for failover and presumably load balancing.

If I build a DHCPv6 client which asks multiple servers today using the same
identifying information (link local address and relay subnet prefix),
wouldn't there be a risk of the client failing when the servers are
connected using a server to server protocol?

My point is that it isn't trivial to have a future-proof client implementation
talking to multiple servers.

I don't know what the WG wants to do about this problem.
A few possibilities:
1. Declare it out of scope and make that explicit in the document.
2. Specify in the document any known issues when a client on a single interface
   talks to multiple servers. 3. Work out how things could function in a
server-server environment
   by defining what the client gets back (an error or something else)
   when it contacts a second server which is synchronized with the first
   server it talked to.

   Erik