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 <ta...@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