North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects

  • From: Jake Khuon
  • Date: Wed Mar 27 14:08:44 2002
  • Action:
  • Dcc:
  • Expires:

### On 27 Mar 2002 13:48:09 -0500, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki
### <[email protected]> casually decided to expound upon [email protected]
### 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 <[email protected]> ]======================+
 | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers     /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
 | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation  / |/  [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |