path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6853.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     J. Brzozowski
Request for Comments: 6853                  Comcast Cable Communications
BCP: 180                                                     J. Tremblay
Category: Best Current Practice                           Videotron G.P.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  J. Chen
                                                       Time Warner Cable
                                                            T. Mrugalski
                                                                     ISC
                                                           February 2013


              DHCPv6 Redundancy Deployment Considerations

Abstract

   This document provides information for those wishing to use DHCPv6 to
   support their deployment of IPv6.  In particular, it discusses the
   provision of semi-redundant DHCPv6 services.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6853.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Scope and Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     2.1.  Applicability to Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Service Provider Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Enterprise Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Protocol Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  DHCPv6 Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2.  DHCPv6 Relays  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.3.  DHCPv6 Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  Deployment Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.1.  Split Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.2.  Multiple Unique Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.3.  Identical Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Challenges and Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.  Introduction

   Redundancy and high availability for many components of IPv6
   infrastructure are desirable and, in some deployments, mandatory.
   Unfortunately, for DHCPv6 there is currently no standards-based
   failover or redundancy protocol.  An interim solution is to provide
   semi-redundant services: this document specifies an architecture by
   which this can be achieved.

2.  Scope and Assumptions

   DHCPv6 redundancy may be useful in a wide range of scenarios.
   Although the architecture suggested in this document is able to be
   used in a wide range of networks, just two deployment environments
   are discussed here: service provider and enterprise network.  All
   other scenarios may be generalized to one of these two cases.

   In the rest of the document, the following assumptions are made with
   regards to the existing DHCPv6 infrastructure, regardless of the
   environment being considered:

   1.  At least two DHCPv6 servers provide a service to the same
       clients.  (The architecture does not limit the number of servers,
       and more may be provided if required.)





Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


   2.  The existing DHCPv6 servers will not directly communicate or
       interact with one another in the assignment of IPv6 addresses and
       the provision of configuration information to requesting clients.

   3.  DHCPv6 clients are instructed to run stateful DHCPv6 to request
       at least one IPv6 address.  Configuration information and other
       options (such as a delegated IPv6 prefix) may also be requested
       as part of the stateful DHCPv6 operation.

   4.  Clients participating in DHCPv6 configuration have to properly
       handle the preference option, including the processing of
       ADVERTISE messages as required by [RFC3315].

   5.  A DHCPv6 server failure does not imply a failure of any other
       network service or protocol (e.g., TFTP servers).  The redundancy
       of any additional services configured by means of DHCPv6 are
       outside the scope of this document.  (For example, a single
       DHCPv6 server may configure multiple TFTP servers, with
       preference for each TFTP server, as specified in [RFC5970].)

   While the techniques described in this document provide some aspects
   of redundancy, it should be noted that complete redundancy will not
   be available until a DHCPv6 failover protocol is standardized.  The
   requirements for such a protocol are described in [FAILREQ].

2.1.  Applicability to Prefix Delegation

   The same approaches discussed in this document can potentially be
   applied to prefix delegation (PD) [RFC3633].  One obvious drawback of
   using a split prefix model for PD is that use of resources is
   doubled.  It should be noted that such applicability remains
   theoretical and was not investigated thoroughly during work on this
   document.  As such, the applicability of presented mechanisms to the
   prefix delegation is outside of the scope of this document.

3.  Service Provider Deployment

   The service provider model represents cases where the network and
   end-user devices may be administered by separate entities.

   The DHCPv6 clients include cable modems, customer gateways or home
   routers, and end-user devices: these are collectively referred to as
   Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).  In some cases hosts may be
   configured directly using the service provider DHCPv6 infrastructure;
   in others, configuration may be via an intermediate router that is
   being configured by the provider DHCPv6 infrastructure.  Either way,
   the service provider DHCPv6 infrastructure may be semi-redundant.




Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


   In discussing this environment, additional assumptions to those
   listed in Section 2 have been made:

   1.  The service provider edge routers and access routers are IPv6
       enabled when required.  These routers are, for example, CMTS
       (Cable Modem Termination System) for cable or DSLAM/BRAS (Digital
       Subscriber Link Access Multiplexer / Broadband Remote Access
       Server) for DSL.

   2.  CPE devices are instructed to perform stateful DHCPv6 to request
       at least one IPv6 address, delegated prefix, and/or configuration
       information.  CPE devices may also be instructed to use stateless
       DHCPv6 [RFC3736] to acquire configuration information only, a
       situation that assumes the IPv6 address and prefix information
       has been acquired using other means.

   3.  The primary application of this architecture is for native IPv6
       services.  (Use and applicability to transition mechanisms are
       out of scope for this document.)

   4.  The CPE devices must implement a stateful DHCPv6 client
       [RFC3315].  Support for DHCPv6 prefix delegation [RFC3633] or
       stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736] may also be implemented.

4.  Enterprise Deployment

   The enterprise deployment environment covers cases where end-user
   devices are direct consumers of the configuration provided by the
   DHCP servers without any intermediate devices (as was the case with
   home routers used in the service provider environment).  Although
   enterprise IPv6 environments quite often use or require DHCPv6 relay
   agents, the relays do not influence or process the configuration in
   any way and merely act as a transport mechanism.

   The additional assumptions made for this model beyond those listed in
   Section 2 are:

   1.  DHCPv6 clients are hosts and are considered end nodes, i.e., they
       consume provided configuration and do not use it to provision
       other devices.  Examples of such clients include desktop
       computers, laptops, printers, other typical office equipment, and
       some mobile devices.

   2.  The DHCPv6 clients generally do not require the assignment of an
       IPv6 prefix delegation, and as such they typically do not support
       DHCPv6 prefix delegation [RFC3633].





Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


5.  Protocol Requirements

   Implementation of the architecture for semi-redundant DHCPv6 services
   using existing protocols requires the component DHCPv6 clients,
   relays, and servers to have certain capabilities.  The following
   sections describe the requirements of such devices.

5.1.  DHCPv6 Servers

   This interim architecture requires the DHCPv6 servers that are
   [RFC3315] compliant and support the necessary options.  Support for
   stateful DHCPv6 and the DHCPv6 preference option [RFC3315] is
   essential to the architecture.  For deployment scenarios where IPv6
   prefix delegation is needed, DHCPv6 servers must support DHCPv6
   prefix delegation as defined by [RFC3633].  Furthermore, the DHCPv6
   servers must support [RFC3736] if stateless DHCPv6 is used.

5.2.  DHCPv6 Relays

   DHCPv6 relay agents must be [RFC3315] compliant and must support the
   ability to relay DHCPv6 messages to more than one destination.

5.3.  DHCPv6 Clients

   DHCPv6 clients are required to be compliant with [RFC3315] and
   support the necessary options required to support the solution
   depending on the mode of operations and desired behavior:

   o  If prefix delegation is required, DHCPv6 clients must support
      DHCPv6 prefix delegation as defined in [RFC3633].

   o  Clients must support the acquisition of at least one IPv6 address
      and configuration information using stateful DHCPv6 as specified
      by [RFC3315].

   o  Stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736] may also be supported.

   o  DHCPv6 clients must recognize and adhere to the processing of the
      advertised DHCPv6 preference option sent by the DHCPv6 servers.












Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


6.  Deployment Models

   At the time of writing, a standards-based DHCPv6 redundancy protocol
   is not available.  In the interim solution presented here, existing
   DHCPv6 server implementations are used as-is to provide best effort,
   semi-redundant DHCPv6 services.  The behavior of these services will,
   in part, be governed by the configuration of each of the servers.
   Various aspects of the DHCPv6 protocol [RFC3315] are used to yield
   the desired behavior, although there is no inter-server or inter-
   process communication to coordinate DHCPv6 events and/or activities.

   The solution does not impact DHCPv4, so DHCP services for both IPv4
   and IPv6 may operate simultaneously on the same physical server(s) or
   may operate on different ones.

   This section defines three semi-redundant models.  Although /64
   prefixes are used throughout the following sections as examples,
   other prefix lengths may be used as well.

6.1.  Split Prefixes

   In the split prefixes model, each DHCPv6 server is configured with a
   unique, non-overlapping pool derived from the /64 prefix deployed for
   use within an IPv6 network.  For example, distributing an allocated
   /64 such as 2001:db8:1:1::/64 between two servers would require that
   it be split into two /65 pools, 2001:db8:1:1:0000::/65 and 2001:db8:
   1:1:8000::/65.

   Both DHCPv6 servers are simultaneously active and operational, and
   each allocates IPv6 addresses from the corresponding pools per device
   class.  The address allocation is governed largely through the use of
   the DHCPv6 preference option, so the server with the higher
   preference value is always preferred.  Additional proprietary
   mechanisms can be used to further enforce the favoring of one DHCP
   server over another.  An example of such a scenario is presented in
   Figure 1.

   It is important to note that, over time, it is possible that bindings
   will be unevenly distributed amongst the DHCPv6 servers, and no one
   server will be authoritative for all of them.

   As defined in [RFC3315], a DHCPv6 ADVERTISE message with a preference
   option of 255 is an indicator to a DHCPv6 client to immediately begin
   a client-initiated message exchange by transmitting a REQUEST message
   to the server that sent the ADVERTISE.  Alternatively, a DHCPv6
   ADVERTISE message with no preference option (or one with a value less





Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


   than 255) is an indicator to the client that it must wait for
   subsequent ADVERTISE messages before choosing the server to which is
   responds, as described in Section 17.1.2 of [RFC3315].

   In the event of a DHCPv6 server failure, it is desirable (but not
   essential) for a server other than the server that originally
   responded to be able to rebind the client's lease.  Given the
   proposed architecture, the remaining active DHCPv6 server will have a
   different address pool configured, making it technically incorrect to
   rebind the client in its current state.  Ultimately, the rebinding
   will fail and the client will acquire a new binding from the pool
   configured in the active server.

   To reduce the possibility that a client or some other element on the
   network will experience a disruption in service or access to relevant
   binding data, shorter values for T1, T2, valid, and preferred
   lifetimes can be used.  The values for the last three can be adjusted
   or configured to minimize service disruption.  Ideally, setting them
   equal (or nearly equal) can be used to trigger a DHCPv6 client to
   reacquire the IPv6 address, prefix, and/or configuration information
   almost immediately after the rebinding fails.  It is important to
   note, however, that shorter values will create an additional load on
   the DHCPv6 servers.

   While using a split prefix configuration model, the dynamic updates
   to DNS [RFC2136] can be coordinated to ensure that the DNS is
   properly updated with the current binding information.  Challenges
   arise with regards to the update of the PTR resource record for IPv6
   addresses since the DNS information may need to be overwritten in a
   failure condition.  The use of split prefixes enables the
   differentiation of bindings and binding timing to determine which
   represents the current state.  This becomes particularly important
   when DHCPv6 Leasequery [RFC5007] and/or DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery
   [RFC5460] are used to determine lease or binding state.

   Finally, a benefit of this scheme is that the use of separate pools
   per DHCPv6 server makes failure conditions more obvious and
   detectable.













Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


                 +----------+                 +-----------+
                 | Client 1 +-\            +--+ Server 1  |
                 +----------+  \           |  +-----------+
                                \          |
                                 \         |
                                  \        |
                 +----------+      \       |  +-----------+
                 | Client 2 +--------------+--| Server 2  |
                 +----------+      /       |  +-----------+
                       .          /        .
                       .         /         .
                       .        /          .
                 +----------+  /           .  +-----------+
                 | Client N +-/            .--| n+1 Server|
                 +----------+                 +-----------+

                 Server 1
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:1:0000::/65
                 Preference = 255

                 Server 2
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:1:8000::/65
                 Preference = 0

                 Server n+1
                 ==========
                 Prefix, pool, and preference would
                 vary based on prefix definition

                     Figure 1: Split prefixes approach

6.2.  Multiple Unique Prefixes

   In the multiple prefix model, each DHCPv6 server is configured with a
   unique, non-overlapping prefix.  A /64 pool equal to the prefix is
   configured on each server.  For example, the 2001:db8:1:1::/64 pool
   would be assigned to a single DHCPv6 server for allocation to clients
   equal to its parent prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64.  The second DHCPv6
   server could use 2001:db8:1:5::/64 as both pool and prefix.  This
   would be repeated for each active DHCP server.  An example of this
   scenario is presented in Figure 2.






Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


   The major difference between the split prefixes approach and the
   multiple unique prefixes approach is that the latter does not require
   prefixes to be adjacent.  In fact, the split prefixes approach can be
   considered a special case of the multiple unique prefixes approach.

   This approach uses a unique prefix and ultimately a single pool per
   DHCPv6 server with the corresponding prefixes configured for use in
   the network.  The corresponding network infrastructure must in turn
   be configured to use multiple prefixes on the interface(s) facing the
   DHCPv6 clients.  The configuration is similar on all the servers, but
   a different prefix and a different preference are used for each
   DHCPv6 server.

   This approach drastically increases the rate of consumption of IPv6
   prefixes and also yields operational and management challenges
   related to the underlying network since a significantly higher number
   of prefixes need to be configured and routed.  It also does not
   provide a clean migration path to the desired solution using a
   standards-based DHCPv6 redundancy or failover protocol (which, of
   course, has yet to be specified).

   The use of multiple unique prefixes provides benefits related to
   dynamic updates to DNS similar to those referred to in Section 6.1.
   The use of multiple unique prefixes enables the differentiation of
   bindings and binding timing to determine which represents the current
   state.  This becomes particularly important when DHCPv6 Leasequery
   [RFC5007] and/or DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery [RFC5460] are used to
   determine lease or binding state.  The use of separate prefixes and
   pools per DHCPv6 server makes failure conditions more obvious and
   detectable.





















Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


                 +----------+                 +-----------+
                 | Client 1 +-\            +--+ Server 1  |
                 +----------+  \           |  +-----------+
                                \          |
                                 \         |
                                  \        |
                 +----------+      \       |  +-----------+
                 | Client 2 +--------------+--| Server 2  |
                 +----------+      /       |  +-----------+
                       .          /        .
                       .         /         .
                       .        /          .
                 +----------+  /           .  +-----------+
                 | Client N +-/            .--| n+1 Server|
                 +----------+                 +-----------+

                 Server 1
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Preference = 255

                 Server 2
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:5::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:5::/64
                 Preference = 0

                 Server 3
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:f::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:f::/64
                 Preference = [1..254]

                 Figure 2: Multiple unique prefix approach

6.3.  Identical Prefixes

   In the identical prefix model, each DHCPv6 server is configured with
   the same overlapping prefix and pool deployed for use within an IPv6
   network.  Distribution between two or more servers, for example,
   would require that the same /64 prefix and pool be configured on all
   DHCP servers.  For instance, the 2001:db8:1:1::/64 pool would be
   assigned to all the DHCPv6 servers for allocation to clients derived
   from the 2001:db8:1:1::/64 prefix.  This would be repeated for each
   active DHCP server.  An example of such a scenario is presented in
   Figure 3.




Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 10]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


   This approach uses the same prefix, length, and pool definition
   across multiple DHCPv6 servers.  All other configuration parameters
   remain the same, with the exception of the DHCPv6 preference.  Such
   an approach conceivably eases the migration of DHCPv6 services to
   fully support a standards-based redundancy or failover protocol once
   such solution becomes available.  Similar to the split prefix
   architecture described above, this approach does not place any
   additional addressing requirements on the network infrastructure.

   The use of identical prefixes provides no benefit or advantage
   related to dynamic DNS updates, support of DHCPv6 Leasequery
   [RFC5007] or DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery [RFC5460].  In this case, all
   DHCP servers will use the same prefix and pool configurations making
   it less obvious that a failure condition or event has occurred.





































Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 11]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


                 +----------+                 +-----------+
                 | Client 1 +-\            +--+ Server 1  |
                 +----------+  \           |  +-----------+
                                \          |
                                 \         |
                                  \        |
                 +----------+      \       |  +-----------+
                 | Client 2 +--------------+--| Server 2  |
                 +----------+      /       |  +-----------+
                       .          /        .
                       .         /         .
                       .        /          .
                 +----------+  /           .  +-----------+
                 | Client N +-/            .--| n+1 Server|
                 +----------+                 +-----------+

                 Server 1
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Preference = 255

                 Server 2
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Preference = 0

                 Server 3
                 ========
                 Prefix = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Pool = 2001:db8:1:1::/64
                 Preference = [1..254]

                    Figure 3: Identical prefix approach

7.  Challenges and Issues

   The lack of interaction between DHCPv6 servers introduces a number of
   challenges related to the operations of the same service instances in
   a production environment.  The following areas are of particular
   concern:

   o  In the identical prefixes scenario, both servers must follow the
      same address allocation procedure, i.e., they both must use the
      same algorithm and the same policy to determine which address is
      going to be assigned to a specific client.  Otherwise, there is a
      distinct chance that each server will assign the same address to



Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 12]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


      two different clients.  It is expected that both servers will
      receive each incoming REQUEST message.  Usually, no special action
      is required to achieve this as REQUEST messages are sent to a
      multicast address by clients.  Relays are expected to forward
      incoming client messages to all servers.  The client indicates the
      chosen server by including its DHCP Unique Identifier (DUID) in
      the Server-ID option.  The chosen server assigns the address and
      other configuration options, while the other server discards the
      incoming request.  In case of a failure of one server, the other
      server will assign the same address by following the same
      algorithm and the same policy.

   o  Interactions with DNS server(s) using dynamic update for the same
      address when one or more DHCPv6 servers have become unavailable.
      This specifically becomes a challenge when (or if) nodes that were
      initially granted a lease:

      1.  Attempt to renew or rebind the lease originally granted, or

      2.  Attempt to obtain a new lease

      The DHCID resource record [RFC4701] allows identification of the
      current owner of the specific DNS data that is the target of an
      update [RFC2136].  [RFC4704] specifies how DHCPv6 servers and/or
      clients may perform updates.  [RFC4703] provides a way to solve
      conflicts between clients.  Although [RFC4703] deals with most
      cases, it is still possible to leave abandoned resource records.
      Consider the following scenario: there are two independent
      servers, A and B.  Server A assigns a lease to a client and
      updates the DNS with an AAAA record for the assigned address.
      When the client renews, server A is not available and server B
      assigns a different lease.  The DNS is again updated, so now two
      AAAA resource records are present for the client: there is no
      indication as to which of the two leases is active.  If server A
      never recovers, its information may never be removed (although it
      should be noted that this case is somewhat similar to that of a
      single server crashing and leaving abandoned resource records).

   o  Interactions with DHCPv6 servers to facilitate the acquisition of
      IPv6 lease data by way of the DHCPv6 Leasequery [RFC5007] or
      DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery [RFC5460] protocols when one or more DHCPv6
      servers have granted leases to DHCPv6 clients and later became
      unavailable.  If the lease data is required and the granting
      server is unavailable, it will not be possible to obtain any
      information about leases granted until one of the following has
      taken place:





Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 13]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


      1.  The granting DHCPv6 server becomes available with all lease
          information restored.

      2.  The client has renewed or rebound its lease against a
          different DHCPv6 server.

      It is important to note that any exchange of available leases and
      synchronization between DHCPv6 servers is not possible until a
      redundancy or failover protocol is standardized or proprietary
      solutions become available.

8.  Security Considerations

   Additional security considerations are created through the use of
   this interim architecture beyond what has been cited in Section 23 of
   [RFC3315].  In particular, the dynamic DNS update using the models
   defined in this document allows for the possibility of not removing
   abandoned DNS records even when using the conflict resolution
   mechanism defined in [RFC4703].  However, this is no worse than a
   case where a single deployed server crashes and its lease database
   cannot be recovered.

   When using the identical prefixes model, care must be taken to ensure
   that all servers use the same lease allocation procedure and are
   configured with the same policy.  If this guidance is not followed,
   there is a risk of assignment of the same lease to two separate
   clients.  In some cases, that situation can be recovered by using
   Duplicate Address Detection (Neighbor Discovery) and the DECLINE
   mechanism (DHCPv6).

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bernie Volz, Kim Kinnear, Ralph
   Droms, David Hankins, Chuck Anderson, Ted Lemon, Stephen Farrel, Pete
   McCann, Robert Sparks, Martin Stiemerling, Brian Haberman, and Barry
   Leiba for their input and review.

   Special thanks to Stephen Morris for his numerous spelling, grammar
   corrections, and proofreading.

   This work has been partially supported by Department of Computer
   Communications (a division of Gdansk University of Technology) and
   the National Centre for Research and Development (Poland) under the
   European Regional Development Fund, Grant No. POIG.01.01.02-00-045/
   09-00 (Future Internet Engineering Project).






Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 14]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, April 1997.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

   [RFC3736]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.

   [RFC4701]  Stapp, M., Lemon, T., and A. Gustafsson, "A DNS Resource
              Record (RR) for Encoding Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol (DHCP) Information (DHCID RR)", RFC 4701,
              October 2006.

   [RFC4703]  Stapp, M. and B. Volz, "Resolution of Fully Qualified
              Domain Name (FQDN) Conflicts among Dynamic Host
              Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Clients", RFC 4703,
              October 2006.

   [RFC4704]  Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
              Option", RFC 4704, October 2006.

   [RFC5007]  Brzozowski, J., Kinnear, K., Volz, B., and S. Zeng,
              "DHCPv6 Leasequery", RFC 5007, September 2007.

   [RFC5460]  Stapp, M., "DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery", RFC 5460,
              February 2009.

   [RFC5970]  Huth, T., Freimann, J., Zimmer, V., and D. Thaler, "DHCPv6
              Options for Network Boot", RFC 5970, September 2010.

10.2.  Informative References

   [FAILREQ]  Mrugalski, T. and K. Kinnear, "DHCPv6 Failover
              Requirements", Work in Progress, September 2012.





Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 15]
^L
RFC 6853            DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations       February 2013


Authors' Addresses

   John Jason Brzozowski
   Comcast Cable Communications
   1306 Goshen Parkway
   West Chester, PA  19380
   USA

   Phone: +1-609-377-6594
   EMail: john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com


   Jean-Francois Tremblay
   Videotron G.P.
   612 Saint-Jacques
   Montreal, Quebec  H3C 4M8
   Canada

   EMail: jf@jftremblay.com


   Jack Chen
   Time Warner Cable
   13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Herndon, VA  20171
   USA

   EMail: jack.chen@twcable.com


   Tomasz Mrugalski
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   950 Charter St.
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 423 1345
   EMail: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com













Brzozowski, et al.        Best Current Practice                [Page 16]
^L