[Community-Discuss] Yet more data base problems/inconsistancies

Frank Habicht 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. [1]


>> 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.

Completely agree.


More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list