nanog mailing list archives
Re: 2000::/6
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:34:21 -0400
On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:According to https://stat.ripe.net/2000%3A%3A%2F6#tabId=routing "2000::/6 is visible by 79% of 92 IPv6 RIS full peers."This problem has been solved.do we mark it up to pixie dust, or do we get an actual post mortem?
I talked to folks at 3549, they had a few tickets on it that took care of that. I know we are reviewing our “alloc-boundary” filter to prevent such a large prefix passing again. - Jared
Current thread:
- 2000::/6 Tarko Tikan (Sep 10)
- 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 Randy Bush (Sep 11)
- Re: 2000::/6 Alain Hebert (Sep 10)