CloudFlare IPv6 BGP announcements - WTF guys?

Bernhard Schmidt berni at
Mon Jul 16 23:44:26 CEST 2012

On 16.07.2012 23:36, Sascha Luck wrote:

> Which, IMO does a lot more harm to ipv6 adoption than
> a few deagreggated /48s in a routing table that is by no means crowded
> (yet) anyway.
> inet6.0: 9587/9587/9587/0
> meh, excuse me for not panicking just yet...

You will never be able to make it strict later, there will always be 
networks on auto-pilot saying "this used to work, I don't care". Which 
is why I was advocating for strict filtering in the beginning.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list