[Community-Discuss] Yet more data base problems/inconsistancies
geier at geier.ne.tz
Fri Nov 6 04:47:31 UTC 2020
On 06/11/2020 01:55, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <d3e5bb88-f09c-3eba-188f-e0ebb8107f94 at geier.ne.tz>,
> Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
>> in the file i found:
>> ; Source AFRINIC
>> 203.196.in-addr.arpa. NS ns1.ati.tn.
>> 203.196.in-addr.arpa. NS ns2.ati.tn.
>> if there is a delegation for the "/16 equivalent" then one can't create
>> a delegation for an enclosed "/24 equivalent" zone. 
>> So probably the
>>> domain: 35.203.196.in-addr.arpa
>> object shouldn't have been allowed to be created / imported from RIPE...
> Let me just say at the outset that I may perhaps not be on entirely
> solid ground here... I may need to drag out my Cricket book and double
> check this... but my belief at the moment is that what you just said
> is not actually correct, that DNS is a bit like routing, where a more
> specific can effectively override a less specific, and that there is
> nothing to prevent separate and different delegations to both a
> containing /16 and also to a /24 within that /16.
I have no idea why Cricket .... ;-)
But have to say I agree.
I was writing what I was writing based on the 2nd paragraph from Anand in
which maybe I have misinterpreted.
> Regardless of whether that is correct or not, as I have already noted,
> there is clearly a mismatch between what is present in the AFRINIC
> WHOIS data base and the data that is present within the various files
> within ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/zones/ and this mismatch, this
> anomaly, should be addressed in some manner, either by removing invalid
> entries from the WHOIS or by adding entries to the zone files.
More information about the Community-Discuss