> On 27. Oct 2019, at 20:36, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: > > Not quite. > > 203.0.113.1 > 203.0.113.3 > 203.0.113.5 > 203.0.112.6 > 203.0.112.7 > > Will aggregate to 203.0.113.0/29 if you dont mind the missing 3 addresses > in the unaggregated list. > > Hence, fuzzy aggregation.
Could you describe the problem again? I’m interested, but I’m not sure that I quite understand what you want to do :-) were the last two addresses supposed to have 112 in the third octet? Nick