[DBWG] person without email... and domain object size

[Frank Habicht]

On 07/09/2020 17:21, Ben Maddison wrote:
> Hi Simon, all,
> 
> On 09/07, Simon Seruyinda wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Regarding the rdns objects size, thanks for bringing this up for discussion. Currently we have a limit for IPv4 set to minimum of /24, but there is no limit implemented for IPv6, so it will go up to 128.
>> I agree this could lead to unnecessary db growth and i think a limit should be set. Input from the DBWG members on what would be the appropriate minimum would highly be appreciated.
>>
> I would align with the minimum allocation size (/48, right?).
> It's conceivable that a resource holder might want to delegate down
> further, but that, I believe, should be a task for the operator's
> nameservers.

So,

I apparently was wrong assuming something was already implemented.

I've just seen that a domain object for a /128 was created yesterday.

I think we can now start a 1-week last call on the suggestion from Ben 
(yes, from long ago) to limit domain objects for IPv6 (i.e. ending in 
.ip6.arpa) to be covering no smaller(longer) prefixes than the minimum 
assignment size (currently /48)


I propose, if consensus:
- domain objects with .ip6.arpa can not have more than 12 hexits when
    created
- staff to contact owners of the domain objects with more than 12 hexits
   to create an object covering their allocation/assignment and
   eventually delete the domain object covering an unnecessarily specific
   prefix
   There are 110 if my grep counted correctly.
   Surely from much fewer organisations.


Regards,
Frank