Unaggregated prefixes in BGP4+ cloud

[kita@isl.intec.co.jp]

This is Yoshiaki Kitaguchi, one of administrators of AS7680

On October 22nd, we announced unexpected (unaggregated) IPv6
prefixes from AS7680 and we fixed the problem immediately.

We DO NOT announce unaggregated prefixes now.

But, it seems to be that these bogus routes remain in 6bone.
A certain AS might not withdraw these bogus route, and still
propagate them.

We are contacting maintainers of some networks, to solve the
problem.

Best regards,


Guardini Ivano wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>during the last two weeks the number of unaggregated IPv6 prefixes
>advertised 
>within the BGP4+ cloud is increased a lot (look at
>http://carmen.cselt.it/ipv6/bgp/odd-routes.html 
>and http://carmen.cselt.it/ipv6/bgp/graphs/index.html) and I think that this
>is a
>very undesirable thing that should be fixed especially if we really consider
>the 6bone as a
>gymnasium for production use of IPv6.
>The ASs that are currently generating most of the unaggregated prefixes are:
>
>- AS7680 with 22 unaggregated prefixes
>- AS4556 with 20 unaggregated prefixes
>- AS2852 (CESNET) with 8 unaggregated prefixes
>- AS11008 (CENTAURI-AR) with 8 unaggregated prefixes
>
>Unfortunately I was not able to locate contact persons for AS7680 and AS4556
>in that they
>seem not to be registered in the 6bone database. 
>The poor use of the 6bone registry is another critical issue that we should
>try
>to address especially for the sites participating in the BGP4+ cloud. For
>example
>I think that any pTLA or pNLA should make sure that any new downstream BGP4+
>peer
>is correctly registered in the 6bone database before setting up the
>connection.

---
Yoshiaki Kitaguchi <kita@isl.intec.co.jp>
INTEC Systems Laboratory Inc.