[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num

Nishal Goburdhan nishal at controlfreak.co.za
Mon Aug 17 19:02:00 UTC 2020

On 17 Aug 2020, at 16:31, Frank Habicht wrote:

> Sure: *these* were created by the member, not by AfriNIC.

> But should these not have been removed whilst removing the inet6num ?

assume for a minute that the member did not pay their fees. afrinic
themselves, would have happily removed the domain objects as part of
“suspending the resources” (heh!) even though they were “created
by the member”.

so, i’m not sure why you felt it necessary to say: “ *these* were
created by the member”. as if that confers some sort of special power
onto them?

> I would think so, but would like to seek consensus.

see above; that ship sailed a long time ago ;-)

> 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"

> objects....... right?


> If not we might see unnecessary garbage and (internal) problems when a

> subnet or supernet gets delegated again.

i seem to remember that there a policy that helps with this .. like
“lame delegation” something-or-the-other that’s meant to deal with
long-term occurrences of this. so, even if the db-admin, for reasons
unknown, deigned to remove the domain objects, said objects _should_
have been reported, and acted on. iirc, the details were left to
afrinic to implement, but i stand to correction.


More information about the DBWG mailing list