On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM, William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't see that. >> >> If I want to shrink my routing tables I can filter out any Canadian more >> specifics all over the world except in Canada, and instead put in an >> aggregate that covers the address space used in Canada. > > Anyway, my concern is this: if it's that close to a full breach of the > permission constraint in an 8-node system, what does it look like in a > 50-node system?
Iljitsch, Found the breach. Look at http://bill.herrin.us/network/geoag-i1.gif With your new strategy, packets from H to E will take the aggregated route through C and B instead of the longer (but permitted) route through I and J. Nice try though. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
