[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num

[James]

Dear Frank,

Thank you for bringing this forward.

When resources are being de-registered by staff, we have mechanisms that
checks for child objects and prevents the deletion where any still exist.

However, based on the issue you have raised, we have noted that there is
a bug in the implementation and this bug led to the issues observed.

We will be  taking this up with our software team to fix the issue and
also look for better monitoring.

Regards,

James


On 18/08/2020 08:53, Frank Habicht wrote:

>

> 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.

> thanks.

>

>

>> 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.

>

>

> Frank

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> DBWG mailing list

> DBWG at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg


-- 
James Chirwa
Acting Manager, Member Services Department,
AFRINIC Ltd.
t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 |
tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net
SM: facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia
____________________________