[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num

Frank Habicht 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
that process.

> 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?


> yes.


> 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 mailing list