Re: 2000::/6

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

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 () 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