Dear working group,

Feedback welcome - should 2002::/16 still be accepted in the DFZ?

Kind regards.

Job

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 23:08
Subject: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters?
To: NANOG [nanog@nanog.org] <nanog@nanog.org>


Dear all,

TL;DR: Perhaps it is time to add 2002::/16 to our EBGP bogon filters?

It is kind of strange that in the default-free zone (where we don’t announce defaults to each other) - we will propagate what is effectively an IPv4 default-route, in the IPv6 DFZ. 

IETF has politely abandoned the prefix: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526

Wes George highlighted operational problems from accepting 2002::/16 on the data-plane slide 6: 
http://iepg.org/2018-03-18-ietf101/wes.pdf

Is there still really any legit reason left to accept, or propagate, 2002::/16 on EBGP sessions in the DFZ?

Kind regards,

Job