For example, can 126.96.36.199/17 and 188.8.131.52/18 be contained in one forwarding table together? Or the first one must be changed to 184.108.40.206/18? Because the other half will go to the second prefix?
Both routes would be installed into the active routing table and the more specific route would win if it was relevant to the packet being routed.
220.127.116.11/18 will be installed but so will 18.104.22.168/17 as the /18 doesn't cover all of the /17.
If you had static routes configured like this...
22.214.171.124/18 VIA x.x.x.x 126.96.36.199/17 VIA z.z.z.z
You would have the following results in the active table.
188.8.131.52 - 184.108.40.206 will be routed via x.x.x.x 220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168 will be routed via z.z.z.z
The only way the /17 route wouldn't show up in your routing table is if you had something like this going on for static routes.
22.214.171.124/18 VIA x.x.x.x 126.96.36.199/18 VIA y.y.y.y 188.8.131.52/17 VIA z.z.z.z
Your active table would look like this.
184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11 will be routed via x.x.x.x 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124 will be routed via y.y.y.y
Since you have all of the /17 covered by more specific /18 routes the /17 drops out of the active routing table.
If the forwarding table was implemented as a 256-way m-trie, then 126.96.36.199/17 would contain the mtrie entries for 188.8.131.52/18... although these two routes could easily go to different IPv4 next-hops, since IP routing works on the principle of longest-prefix-match wins.
This is a simplified view of an mtrie for 184.108.40.206/17...
This is a simplified view of an mtrie for 220.127.116.11/18 (which is contained inside 18.104.22.168/17)...