personal opinion here. On 25/06/2019 10:41, Lannert, Julian wrote:
Can you tell me the reasoning behind the decision to include this prefix in your bogon list?
Reading rfc7526[0] """ 6. Operational Recommendations (...) Internet service providers that do not operate an anycast relay but do provide their customers with a route to 192.88.99.1 SHOULD verify that it does in fact lead to an operational anycast relay (...) 7. IANA Considerations (...) "Deprecated (6to4 Relay Anycast)" and added a reference to this RFC. (...) """ Reading the above. It makes sense to include it since status has changed to deprecated. rfc7526 is from May 2015. Job only recently-ish included 192.88.99.0/24 in the guide (June 2018) [1]. Reading writeup[2] """ Technical Summary (...) It recommends that future products should not support 6to4 anycast and that existing deployments should be reviewed. (...) """ In the light of 6to4 should be less-and-less supported by newer products. It makes perfect sense to start explicitly blocking the prefix in the DFZ, too. /christoffer [0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526 [1]: https://github.com/NLNOG/bgpfilterguide/commit/488ad78 [2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/shepherdw...