Hi Tore, > The proposed text in 2.9 makes it clear that separate locations with > different routing policies should be considered separate End Sites. Next, the > proposed text in 7.1 makes it clear that having multiple End Sites qualifies > for an assignment larger than /48. > > However, it states that this is done «to avoid fragmentation». But doesn't > the fact that those separate End Sites are defined to have different routing > policies make the fragmentation happen anyway?
In the global routing table: yes In ACLs and IPAM etc: no It all depends what you are working on :) > Another thing I find strange is the reference to layer-2 connectivity in 2.9 > and 7.1.1. This seems oddly technology-specific to me. Is it the intention > that two End Sites (with different routing policies) interconnected with an > L2VPN should be treated differently than two End Sites (with different > routing policies) interconnected with an L3VPN? Looks that way, but why? IIRC this is about the history of treating multiple sites that are connected on layer-2 as a single end-site. As that has caused confusion in the past, the new text explicitly states that a layer-2 connection does not automatically mean “single end-site”. Cheers, Sander ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
