[Please take any other responses just to cidrd. This is copied to big-inet
and nanog so people will see the followup request. I just wanted the
announcement to go out maximally, but the details and responses are of
no interet to nanog as a whole...]
> Our route table has:
> *> 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 <--- agis
> *> 184.108.40.206/22 220.127.116.11 <--- mci
> *> 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 <--- agis
> *> 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 <--- agis
This isn't what agis is supposed to be announcing, I'll have to
ask them again to announce 198.111.252/22. There's a couple less
routes already :-).
Once that is fixed, further aggregation of 184.108.40.206 (say into
198.111/16, as a non real example) would change our routing (in
ways we don't want it changed), even with your "next hop the same"
criteria because of the additional meaning that specifics have in
terms of priority.
Well, we only see 198.111.252, 253, and 255 from AGIS, so there's no
danger of AGIS over-aggregating even if they combined 252 & 253...
I agree that your tool is usefull in identifying _potential_ savings.
That's all it's for.