CloudFlare IPv6 BGP announcements - WTF guys?

[Bernhard Schmidt]

On 26.07.2012 10:19, Emile Aben wrote:

Hello Emile,

>>> If 50% of the networks had filtered more-specifics from the beginning,
>>> we would not be in the situation where people announced
>>> smaller-than-allocated and got through with it. It would just be a known
>>> fact that these would not work (like >/24 in IPv4).
>>>
>>> I have the bad feeling it is too late now.
>>
>> Aaaand here is the next one.
>>
>> www.rtl.de has IPv6 address 2a03:d680::200
>>
>> grh.sixxs.net> sh bgp ipv6 2a03:d680::/32 long
>> [...]
>> *  2a03:d680::/48   2001:15f8:1::1                         0 25384 3292
>> 3320 20504 i
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm hoping that this case study on IPv6 /48 filtering using RIPE Atlas
> sheds some more light on this situation:
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-a-case-study-of-ipv6-48-filtering
>
> For ~500 IPv6 enabled RIPE Atlas probes, we see in the order of 1% that
> seem to be affected by strict IPv6 route filtering to the destinations
> mentioned in this thread.
> This is probably an order-of-magnitude-type of number.

Thanks, that test is very interesting. However, I feel there is a 
systematic error in it, because it is quite hard to believe that 
/48-PA-without-covering-prefix has even better reachability than a 
normal /32-PA announcement.

I believe these errors are caused by some other (temporary) routing 
issues going on. There are still a few known bad eggs in the transit 
market and your four test destinations have a widely different transit set.

Would it be possible to repeat this test with all prefixes for the tests 
being originated by the same entitity (i.e. RIPE themselves)?

Thanks,
Bernhard