nanog mailing list archives

Re: 2000::/6

From: Tarko Tikan <tarko () lanparty ee>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:33:37 +0300

hey,

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


2000::/64 has nothing to do with it.

Any address between 2000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 and23ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff together with misconfiguredprefix length (6 instead 64) becomes 2000::/6 prefix.


--
tarko

Current thread:

Re: 2000::/6, (continued)
- Re: 2000::/6 Alain Hebert (Sep 10)
  - Re: 2000::/6 Wouter Prins (Sep 10)
- Re: 2000::/6 Job Snijders (Sep 10)
  - Re: 2000::/6 Randy Bush (Sep 11)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Jared Mauch (Sep 11)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Randy Bush (Sep 11)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Tarko Tikan (Sep 12)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Nick Hilliard (Sep 12)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Tarko Tikan (Sep 12)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Owen DeLong (Sep 12)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Tarko Tikan (Sep 13)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Jimmy Hess (Sep 14)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Nick Hilliard (Sep 14)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Brett Frankenberger (Sep 14)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Tarko Tikan (Sep 15)
    - Re: 2000::/6 Owen DeLong (Sep 16)