nanog mailing list archives

Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects

From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:02:22 +0000

On 31/01/2014 13:58, Alain Hebert wrote:

    IRRToolset 5.0.1 (rtconfig really) finally gave out on a pretty
messy RPSL parse.


of direct relevance to this:

https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/irrtoolset/2011-April/000736.html

tl;dr: rpsl itself is a mess => no point in fixing irrtoolset

There is some work in progress to try to create a new policy description
language which would be a replacement for rpsl.  Very early stages so far,
though.

Nick

Current thread:

Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed? Martin T (Jan 30)
- Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed? Job Snijders (Jan 30)
  - Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed? Tore Anderson (Jan 30)
    - Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed? Martin T (Jan 30)
    - Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed? Darren O'Connor (Jan 30)
    - While on the subject of IRR and route objects Alain Hebert (Jan 31)
    - Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects Job Snijders (Jan 31)
    - Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects ML (Jan 31)
    - Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects Nick Hilliard (Jan 31)
    - Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects Alain Hebert (Jan 31)
    - Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects Job Snijders (Jan 31)
    - Re: While on the subject of IRR and route objects Alain Hebert (Jan 31)