nanog mailing list archives
Re: Routes and routing tables
From: jon () branch com (Jon Zeeff)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
Sounds like a good reason to agressively aggregate, unless people indicate that there are reasons (like part of the /16 is dual homed) for not doing so for specific blocks. I prefer this over most of the "not routing larger prefixes" thing.
In certain circumstances, the people will advertise every class C in a /16 as well as advertising the /16. It's turned into something worse than pre-CIDR.
Current thread:
- Routes and routing tables Christian Nielsen (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Robert Bowman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Jon Zeeff (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Paul A Vixie (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Curtis Villamizar (Apr 29)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Robert Bowman (Apr 27)