[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num

[Frank Habicht]

Hi James,

this is appreciated.
Thanks.
Frank

On 25/08/2020 08:34, James wrote:

> Hello Frank,

> 

> We now have the child orphan monitoring tool in place and I can confirm

> that all orphan objects have been cleaned up, now our focus turns to

> getting the bug fixes implemented asap.

> 

> Regards,

> 

> James   

> 

> On 23/08/2020 20:27, Frank Habicht wrote:

>> 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

>> _______________________________________________

>> DBWG mailing list

>> DBWG at afrinic.net

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

>