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: