This was done without including holes so b) is the right answer ! --T Jessica Yu <jyy@merit.edu> writes: * * The first table focuses on the current classful routes being passed around * by AS * and the amount of gain CIDR would give *IF* we could aggregate as the AS le * vel. * It shows the number of nets per AS so we see who is announcing what in term * s of * BGP as well as what the number of CIDR nets would be advertised if we could * aggregate at this level... * * Tony, * * Interesting. Just wonder if the would CIDR nets (aggregates) of each A * S * that you composed includes holes or not. E.g. * * If AS1 has routes * 199.1.0 - 199.1.7 except 199.1.3. * What CIDR net does it count for this AS in your list: * * a. 199.1.0/21 (aggregate with hole and reduce routes from 7 to 1) or * b. 199.1.0, 199.1.1, 199.1.2 & 199.1.4/22 (without hole and reduce * routes from 7 to 4) * * Basically, I like to know if this reduction of routes on your list (32. * 6%) * is calculated with aggregates with holes or not. If it does not * include holes, we should be able to see a MORE reduction of the routing * table size by doing the same analysis but include holes in the potentia * l * aggregates. * * --Jessica