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