nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects
From: "Jake Khuon" <khuon () NEEBU Net>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:06:28 -0800
### On 27 Mar 2002 13:48:09 -0500, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki ### <karwas () ifxcorp com> casually decided to expound upon nanog () merit edu ### the following thoughts about "Route filters, IRRs, and route objects": PK> Why it is required by some providers to generate explicit, PK> exact route objects, in order to allow routes through PK> their filters? Chalk this up to RIPE181 legacy. In those days of yor, you could only achieve the effect of filtering on those more specifics by registering seperate route objects. Many route objects in the IRR today are byproducts of the blind migration which simply converted RIPE181 formatted objects to RPSL. Although this was great in that it didn't really break anything it also didn't force folks to really learn RPSL and take advantage of the new syntax so many people just never bothered to take their objects and properly convert them. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon () NEEBU Net> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/
Current thread:
- Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Jake Khuon (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Mark Kent (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Stephen Griffin (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 28)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Mark Prior (Mar 28)