Mikrotik Aggregation bug

[Ressy66]

Returned data for a /19 includes subnets within, creating bloat

/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.96.0/19) {accept}" <-- Should with -A this not be only entry.
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.96.0**/22**) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.96.0/24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.98.0/24) {accept}"

Other anomalies where it doesn't aggregate where it can

/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.108.0/23) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst in 203.112.110.0/23 && dst-len in 23-24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst in 203.112.112.0/23 && dst-len in 23-24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst in 203.112.114.0/23 && dst-len in 24-24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst in 203.112.116.0/22 && dst-len in 24-24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst in 203.112.120.0/22 && dst-len in 24-24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst in 203.112.124.0/23 && dst-len in 24-24) {accept}"
/routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.127.0/24) {accept}"

[job]

You should include the exact invocation and version in order for anyone to replicate your observations

[Ressy66]

v 1.12 as per recent download from github

bgpq4 -l as7474 -K7 -A AS7474

[job]

Why do you think 203.112.96.0/19 should not be there?

There is a route object for that prefix:

$ whois -h rr.ntt.net 203.112.96.0/19
route:          203.112.96.0/19
descr:          OCTA4
origin:         AS7474
mnt-by:         MAINT-AS7474
changed:        routing@cwo.net.au 20010413
source:         RADB
last-modified:  2023-11-13T16:03:44Z
rpki-ov-state:  not_found # No ROAs found, or RPKI validation not enabled for source

[Ressy66]

where did I say I dont think it should be there? If you want to be sarcastic, read the question properly first, I even bolded the statement as to what I was getting at in bug report, it may be by design but that doesnt make sense, either way, you obviously arent overly interested so that completes my waste of time.

[randomthingsandstuff]

exact match and rules that match prefix length ranges aren't the same. a shorter prefix doesn't match longer prefixes unless there is a range for the length that also overlaps.

in otherwords /routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.96.0/19) {accept}" isn't a substitute for /routing filter rule add chain="as7474-V4" rule="if (dst==203.112.96.0**/22**) {accept}"

as a friendly reminder, please assume people's best intentions when commenting. job is a nice guy and genuinely wants to help in these matters.