Trouble reaching and

James Aldridge jhma at
Thu Oct 19 16:59:02 CEST 2006

Niels Bakker wrote:
> They are an AMS-IX member and have an open peering policy.  This would
> be worthless for them if they could not attract traffic there.


> Perhaps connectivity would be better if other networks didn't filter.
> Or they could set no-export but then they'd be bitten by networks that
> reset all communities inbound.  In the end you're always dependent on
> other people's networks to deliver the bits to your border routers.

For a while, because of a configuration error, we were announcing our /42 
without setting the 'no-export' community.  This is now fixed but the old 
route may be stuck in some routers out there. In general we would prefer 
traffic to follow the SURFnet path from anywhere except directly peered 
networks.  As you say, this doesn't work when a peer decides not to honour 
our 'no-export' :-(

So, to any of the RIPE NCC's IPv6 peers who may be reading this, please 
honour our 'no-export' (it's there for a reason!) and do NOT advertise 
2001:610:240::/42 to your peers and/or upstreams.  If you insist on 
propagating our route then, at the very least, do not filter the traffic 
which the route attracts.


James Aldridge, Systems and Network Engineer
RIPE Network Coordination Centre                Tel:   +31 20 535 4421
Singel 258              P.O. Box 10096          Fax:   +31 20 535 4445
1016 AB Amsterdam       1001 AB Amsterdam       GSM:   +31 6 1092 2791
The Netherlands         The Netherlands         Email: james at

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list