end user assignment best practice

[Ron Vachiyer]

> I'm aware of 4 options. 
>  
> 1. Provide a separate /64 from a pool local to the PE router. A /48  
> allocated for this caters for ~64k endpoints per PE router. Keeping  
> this local to the PE router prevents route disaggregation within your  
> core, but must be considered dynamic by the CE. 
>  

this is already the plan.  a /48 on the PE is set aside to number all the ptp interfaces between the PE and the customer sites.  What do you mean by "must be considered dynamic by the CE"? 

> 2. Provide an extra customer specific /64. Only viable method today if  
> you require static publicly routable addressing on the WAN side of the  
> CE. Adds an extra routing entry and update if CE can't be guaranteed to  
> terminate on a specific PE router. 
>  

don't you need to provide a extra specific /64 for #1?  Since the CE is not under customer control, the only way to provide him with a means to subdivide the /48 as he sees fit is to route it all the way to his edge router, which in my scenario is one hop past the CE.  This means I have to number as follows:

PE </64> CE </64> CUST </48>

as opposed to v4 which currently typically is

PE </30> CE </29> CUST

> 4. Leave the WAN link to only use Link-Local. Messy and not at all  
> ideal, but works in some situations. 
>  

yuck, messy indeed.

> I'm familiar with active deployments which are using options 1 and 4. 
>  

Perhaps what is annoying me is not the extra utilization of address space but the fact historically there is no dynamic routing between the CE and PE, for lack of a need for it.  If I have to maintain an additional route to every CE it may be necessary to add dynamic routing.


> As for reading material, TR-187 is worth being familiar with,  
> especially for v6 over PPP: 
> http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-187.pdf 

thanks, will have a look at it.

Ron.