[ipv6-wg] Draft Agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE51

On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 18:59 +0200, Mattias.Lignell at teliasonera.com
wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> About the /32's; they are announced on purpose. The reason is that we
> have had problems with some ISP's BGP filters that are set to a maximum
> size of /32. As a result did not our IPv6 customers get connectivity via
> ISP's using the /32 size filters. Maybe this is a problem only we run in
> to being one of the first using a very large prefix. However, the BGP
> filters may be updated by now so we can stop announcing the /32's. 

Thanks for the response, the prefix filtering is not too good to hear
and has been seen before; I know that Daniel Roesen has been very busy
trying to get C&W's /20 available to ISP's using, amongst others, the
output from:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/?a=2001:5000::/21&b=2001:650::/32
At the moment apparently Cisco doesn't see the /21...

This can be easily applied to Telia's /20:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/?a=2001:2000::/20&b=2001:2040::/32

This compares 2001:2000::/20 with 2001:2040::/32.
Taking a quick look it looks quite good, ignoring the light orange which
is there because of the added ASN. There are only few ISP's who report
different paths:
AS 6435 - LavaNet (us / Hawaii)
AS 9264 - Academic Services Network (tw)
AS21155 - Proserve (nl)
AS28788 - Unilogic (nl) {using same upstreams as AS21155)

You might want to contact these ISP's to ask them + upstreams to fix
their filtering, clearly something is being filtered, otherwise the
paths where the same.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20051003/20857bef/attachment.sig>