[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num
geier at geier.ne.tz
Mon Aug 17 14:31:27 UTC 2020
I want to bring up an issue I stumbled upon - hope i'm allowed to ;-)
There's a company, AfriNIC LIR member, that wound up business, sold
equipment to another AfriNIC LIR member, transferred the IPv4 to them as
They also had 2c0f:f370::/32, which is no longer in whois. I'm sure the
member told AfriNIC to "take it back".
But my issue is that I see the
objects still happy in the DB.
Sure: *these* were created by the member, not by AfriNIC.
But should these not have been removed whilst removing the inet6num ?
I would think so, but would like to seek consensus.
I believe the process of deleting an inet6num is rarely happening, but
a) it sure did and b) it should include taking care of these "dependant"
If not we might see unnecessary garbage and (internal) problems when a
subnet or supernet gets delegated again.
More information about the DBWG