### 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 | +=========================================================================*/