2000::/6

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Sep 13 01:51:51 UTC 2014


My guess, actually, would be that someone was entering a more specific default (2000::/3) using a numeric keypad and missed the key with an off by one row error.

There is no matching entry in whois for 2000::/64 (or shorter), so it is unlikely that 2000::/64 was an intended configuration.

Owen

On Sep 12, 2014, at 12:53 AM, Tarko Tikan <tarko at lanparty.ee> wrote:

> hey,
> 
>> maybe i am more than usually st00pid this evening, but i am no smarter
>> on what actually happened, how it was detected
> 
> Dunno about others but I personally detected it using my tools that look for our prefixes (or more specifics) being advertised by someone else. Large covering prefix obviously triggered the bells.
> 
> I'm pretty sure it was a typo in the config, the prefix length had to be /64 but was entered as /6 instead.
> 
> -- 
> tarko



More information about the NANOG mailing list