[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num

[Frank Habicht]

Great. Thanks.
Frank

On 23/08/2020 18:48, James wrote:

> Hello  Frank,

> 

> Indeed the plan is to get all the orphaned objects out of the database

> and this will be done as soon as the monitoring tool is available, and

> we expect this to be available as earliercommunicated.

> 

> Regards,

> 

> James   

> 

> On 20/08/2020 19:04, Frank Habicht wrote:

>> Thanks James.

>>

>> hoping that the general check, capture of orphans and clean up can be

>> done by mid next week.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Frank

>>

>> On 20/08/2020 17:19, James wrote:

>>> Dear Frank,

>>>

>>> Thanks for the inquiry.

>>>

>>> The mechanism being referred to is implemented within the WHOIS  and the

>>> bug has been reported with our software team. As soon as I have an ETA

>>> you shall be kept in the loop.

>>>

>>> Before removing the objects you highlighted, we are running a general

>>> check to establish the extent of the issue and ensure we capture any

>>> other orphan objects that may exist so that the clean up is done at

>>> once. Furthermore, the proactive monitory tool in this regard was

>>> something already requested internally and is under development with an

>>> ETA of Monday.

>>>

>>> My previous update was in the interest of keeping you updated as the

>>> team works in the background to resolve the issue.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>>

>>> James

>>>

>>> On 19/08/2020 22:14, Frank Habicht wrote:

>>>> Dear James,

>>>>

>>>> Thanks for your email.

>>>>

>>>> I want to respond as an AfriNIC member, *not* as DBWG co-chair.

>>>> Also, I'm known to be sometimes a bit too blunt, and i'm currently not

>>>> sure if i can avoid this here. Apologies in advance.

>>>>

>>>> We (non-staff outsiders) probably don't need to know all the internals,

>>>> but in this case i think it would comfort me if we had some indication

>>>> that internal details are being looked at (critically) and this and more

>>>> bug(s) get fixed. with intention of pro-activeness.

>>>> We don't know whether the 'mechanisms that checks for child objects' is

>>>> a script for a human to follow and a passage should be more highlighted,

>>>> or whether that's a script for a machine where a '6?' is missing in a

>>>> regular expression right after 'route' .

>>>>

>>>> And we shouldn't be involved in this. I just want to express that it

>>>> would be very comforting if we could get to see - by results, of course

>>>> - that this is taken seriously and being looked at.

>>>>

>>>> Maybe there should or could be some incentives to find issues. and to

>>>> fix them. Anything i can think of can probably be "gamed", and i

>>>> shouldn't get into details.

>>>> [I included Arthur for that. he had asked me ages ago for feedback, took

>>>> me long to give some;-)]

>>>>

>>>> So I wanted also to mention:

>>>> If I found an embarrassing bug or mistake in my database, I would really

>>>> try hard to fix it, if not before sending the response email, then at

>>>> least immediately after.

>>>>

>>>> If not done 2.5 hours after the email is sent, a troublesome outsider

>>>> (named Frank) could already think the issue gets neglected or forgotten.

>>>>

>>>> the route6 object is still there:

>>>> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net -- -T route6 2c0f:f370::/32 | egrep -A 4

>>>> '^rout'

>>>> route6:         2c0f:f370::/32

>>>> descr:          Auvionics-v6

>>>> origin:         AS328097

>>>> mnt-by:         AA96-MNT

>>>> source:         AFRINIC # Filtered

>>>>

>>>> Since the bug existed when the inet6num was deleted, the route6 wasn't

>>>> deleted during inet6num deletion, I would believe that manual

>>>> intervention is required.

>>>>

>>>> And it seems to me that it still wasn't done.

>>>>

>>>> I simply don't want to do the same check for the domain object for the

>>>> same prefix - I leave that to staff. [maybe I can ask Arthur to drop me

>>>> a note when both are removed]

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Now about an idea for a way forward:

>>>> [and I hope that's obvious, but i request forgiveness that I don't want

>>>> to assume too much]

>>>> Someone could volunteer to find additional objects that were orphaned

>>>> through the same process as the objects in this case i discovered.

>>>>

>>>> - go through all existing domain objects ending in 'ip6.arpa' and see if

>>>>   the covering (or equal) inet6num objects exist -

>>>>        and are *not* equal to ("2c00::/12" or "2001:4200::/23")

>>>> - go through all existing route6 objects, and do the same test.

>>>>

>>>> I strongly believe that we shouldn't look for a volunteer from the

>>>> community for this - AfriNIC staff is just much better equipped (and

>>>> paid) to do that.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Finally I want to mention a word about impact.

>>>>

>>>> [we can't thank Job enough for some of the great tools he's

>>>> contributing, nevertheless: Thank you, Job Snijders!!!]

>>>>

>>>> http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/search/328097

>>>> currently shows 3 AS-SETs in RIPE and one AS-SET in AfriNIC that include

>>>> AS328097, which means that real operators are putting 2c0f:f370::/32

>>>> into real filters, eating up resources ...

>>>> <sarcasm>...and leading to earlier upgrade requirements, spending money

>>>> that we all would rather spend on AfriNIC fees...... </sarcasm>

>>>>

>>>> Now I'm co-guilty; and I will fix 2 of these AS-SETs within 15 minutes

>>>> after sending this email, and make an email to someone to fix the 3rd

>>>> within 30 minutes....

>>>>

>>>> So maybe http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/search/328097 will already look

>>>> better by the time you guys check.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks,

>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On 19/08/2020 17:52, James wrote:

>>>>> 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

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> DBWG mailing list

>>>> DBWG at afrinic.net

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

>> _______________________________________________

>> DBWG mailing list

>> DBWG at afrinic.net

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

>