Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-16 Thread Owen DeLong
r with misconfigured prefix >> length (6 instead 64) becomes 2000::/6 prefix. > > It should be rejected for the same reason that 192.168.10.0/16 is > invalid in a prefix list or access list. > > Any decent router won't allow you to enter just anything in that range >

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-15 Thread Tarko Tikan
hey, Any decent router won't allow you to enter just anything in that range into the export rules with a /6, except 2000:: itself, and will even show you a failure response instead of silently ignoring the invalid input, for the very purpose of helping you avoid such errors. IOS was alread

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-14 Thread Brett Frankenberger
fff:: together with misconfigured prefix > > length (6 instead 64) becomes 2000::/6 prefix. > > It should be rejected for the same reason that 192.168.10.0/16 is > invalid in a prefix list or access list. RTR(config)#ip prefix-list TEST permit 192.168.10.0/16 RTR(config)#do sho

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-14 Thread Nick Hilliard
On 14/09/2014 22:19, Jimmy Hess wrote: > Any decent router won't allow you to enter just anything in that range > into the export rules with a /6, except 2000:: itself tarko is right in suggesting that config typos can cause this sort of thing, e.g. -- router bgp 6 address-family ipv6 red

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-14 Thread Jimmy Hess
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Tarko Tikan wrote: > 2000::/64 has nothing to do with it. > > Any address between 2000::::::: and > 23ff::::::: together with misconfigured prefix > length (6 instead 64) becomes 2000::/6 pre

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-13 Thread Tarko Tikan
misconfigured prefix length (6 instead 64) becomes 2000::/6 prefix. -- tarko

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-12 Thread Owen DeLong
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

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-12 Thread Tarko Tikan
hey, 2000::/64 doesn't make much sense either. No and it was obviously not what was configured. But something like 2001:7d0:1:1::1/64 misconfigured on interface as 2001:7d0:1:1::1/6 becomes 2000::/6 -- tarko

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-12 Thread Nick Hilliard
On 12/09/2014 08:53, Tarko Tikan wrote: I'm pretty sure it was a typo in the config, the prefix length had to be /64 but was entered as /6 instead. 2000::/64 doesn't make much sense either. Nick

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-12 Thread Tarko Tikan
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 obv

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-11 Thread Randy Bush
>>>> 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

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-11 Thread Jared Mauch
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Randy Bush 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,

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-11 Thread Randy Bush
>> 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? randy

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-10 Thread Job Snijders
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:20:45PM +0300, Tarko Tikan wrote: > 2000::/6 with aspath 3257 3549 has appeared in global routing table. Surely > we can't be only ones seeing it. Looks like someone messed up > interface/route config at 3549 by omitting 4 from the prefixlen. > >

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-10 Thread Wouter Prins
Hi, ::/24 is also present: AS-PATH 8455 13030 9498 7602 Mailed the tech-c 2 weeks ago, no response so far. On 10 September 2014 14:33, Alain Hebert wrote: > As of 8h30m EST. > > *>i 2000::/6 1001000 3257 3549 i >Last update to I

Re: 2000::/6

2014-09-10 Thread Alain Hebert
As of 8h30m EST. *>i 2000::/6 1001000 3257 3549 i Last update to IP routing table: 21h23m56s - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec

2000::/6

2014-09-10 Thread Tarko Tikan
hey, 2000::/6 with aspath 3257 3549 has appeared in global routing table. Surely we can't be only ones seeing it. Looks like someone messed up interface/route config at 3549 by omitting 4 from the prefixlen. According to https://stat.ripe.net/2000%3A%3A%2F6#tabId=routing "2000::/6