aggregation in 207/8

Eric Kozowski kozowski at
Wed May 29 17:36:52 UTC 1996

>| Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck?
>I don't know what you mean.  I only see /18s, /17s and shorter prefixes.
>This looks like really good aggregation to me.
>OTOH, we're rather liberal in what we pass along from our paying customers, 
>but the fix for that is known.  access-list 112.  Knock yourself out.

Some of us prefer to not break connectivity for our customers.

The sorry state of aggregation doesn't (currently) affect me one way or the
other.  It would just be nice to see other network operators clean up their 

I've always gone by the "be liberal in what you accept and conservative in
what you create" school of thought.  Maybe if others would, we wouldn't have
such a problem w/ the route table size.

Eric Kozowski             Structured Network Systems, Inc.
kozowski at   Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
(503)656-3235 FAX         "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
(800)881-0962 Voice       56k to DS1

More information about the NANOG mailing list