On Sep 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Tarko Tikan <ta...@lanparty.ee> wrote: >> 2000::/64 has nothing to do with it. >> >> Any address between 2000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 and >> 23ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff 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. > > 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. > 2001::1/6 would be an example of an invalid input -- there are > one or more non-zero bits listed outside the prefix, or where bits in > the mask are zero. > > Only 2000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/6 properly conforms, > not just "any IP" in that range can have a /6 appended to the end.
Which is one of the reasons I think it was more likely a typo for 2000::/3 being entered via numeric keypad. 3 and 6 are adjacent on a numeric keypad and both 2000::/3 and 2000::/6 are valid prefixes. Owen
