Talk:Route summarization
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The provided example seems incorrect. The summarized route also includes ip addresses not provided in the original statement (eg. 192.168.96.x, 192.168.97.y, and many more.)
In fact the route summarization should state : 192.168.98.0/23, 192.168.100.0/23, and the last two can't be summarized....
209.202.115.133 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Jean-Luc Dupont
I agree. If the full block /20 is included in the summary, the routing might go wrong for the networks included in the summary, but not reachable through the same interface. It must however be kept in mind that more specific routes take precedence. If the router learns the destinations through another interface, routing will still work correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbos (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. To explain the topic a textbook example could be used, and only in a further section one could elaborate on "special cases" where one can safely summarize to a larger address block.--Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Merger with Route aggregation[edit]
I fully support this as the two articles attempt to explain the very same thing. Both explain it in an awkward way and with many inconsistencies, though, so a major overhaul would be most appropriate. The section on auto-summarization by routers should receive more attention. The purpose should be made clear. And, and, and.--Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Summarized route is 192.168.96.0/20 (or 255.255.240.0)
this is WRONG!!!! since he does not have the 192.168.96.0 or the 192.168.97.0 with the 255.255.240.0 network would break the network leading to misdirected trafic. you start with you lowest network which in this case is 192.168.98.0 then give it the same 255.255.240.0 sumerization subnetmask. If you don't beleive me try it on a router.
I say drop this page and use the Route aggregation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.162.23 (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree, this CCNP article states they are the same: CCNP self study. Technically supernetting should also be in with the mix too, as its the same thing. --DanielSiva (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)