[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num
geier at geier.ne.tz
Tue Aug 18 04:53:00 UTC 2020
On 17/08/2020 22:02, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> 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”.
didn't know. good to know. so deleting the domain objects is part of
> 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?
wanted to get confirmation that they're not that special.
>> 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?
> 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.
there's no lameness (yet). domain in question is served by my ($dayjob)
servers. And I was looking to clean that up and that got me to this case.
I wish we could get a confirmation (from AfriNIC staff) that deleting
the domain and route objects is (or will from now on be) part of the
process of de-registering any inetnum / inet6num object.
More information about the DBWG