[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
nested prefixes in Internet
- Subject: nested prefixes in Internet
- From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer)
- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:50:25 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CAJx5YvHb6Rj+kEZN4b1nxFkiSXe+wJpvaLO8G7t9=KRd7XW=jA@mail.gmail.com> (Martin T.'s message of "Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:45:20 +0300")
- References: <CAJx5YvE=t2e_tdhDanutJV=y2H=rpSUkKhA6L78Prz5toi1+oA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAJx5YvHb6Rj+kEZN4b1nxFkiSXe+wJpvaLO8G7t9=KRd7XW=jA@mail.gmail.com>
* Martin T.:
> Florian:
>
>> Are the autonomous systems for the /19 and /24 connected directly?
>
> Yes they are.
Then deaggregation really isn't necessary at all.
>> (1) can be better from B's perspective because it prevents certain
>> routing table optimizations (due to the lack of the covering prefix)
>
> What kind of routing table optimizations are possible if covering /19
> prefix is also present in global routing table?
The /24 prefix could arguably be dropped and ignored for routing
decisions.