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

[Frank Habicht]

Hi all,

I've seen another few domain objects for /64's created :-(

Should we keep allowing this?

Regards,
Frank



On 24/03/2024 21:04, Frank Habicht wrote:
> Hi DBWG,
> 
> I didn't see any responses to below email.
> 
> But I've seen some new objects created recently - [1]
> 
> Is there no interest to stop objects like [1] from being created?
> 
> I'm conflicted as in both thinking a change is called for and trying to 
> be a neutral chair.
> 
> So I think if there's no response, then I can not be an impartial chair 
> and declare consensus.
> 
> There seem to be 11 domain objects for /128's.
> There seem to be 108 domain objects for longer than /48.
> 
> I.e. not a current problem as much as a potential problem when any 
> average LIR can create 2^96 domain objects.
> Sorry. That's the number of objects for /128's to create.
> Total of 2^97-1 objects can be created when including all the shorter ones.
> 
> Thanks,
> Frank
> 
> [1]
> domain: 
> 5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.6.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
> descr:          BTCL INTERNAL6
> nserver:        ns4.btc.bw
> nserver:        ns1.btc.bw
> nserver:        vpsm.btc.bw
> org:            ORG-BTC2-AFRINIC
> admin-c:        BM16-AFRINIC
> admin-c:        OSD1-AFRINIC
> admin-c:        IO10-AFRINIC
> tech-c:         BM16-AFRINIC
> tech-c:         OSD1-AFRINIC
> tech-c:         IO10-AFRINIC
> zone-c:         BM16-AFRINIC
> zone-c:         OSD1-AFRINIC
> zone-c:         IO10-AFRINIC
> mnt-by:         TF-196-1-130-0-196-1-133-255-MNT
> mnt-lower:      TF-196-1-130-0-196-1-133-255-MNT
> changed:        malibalak at btc.bw 20240319
> source:         AFRINIC
> 
> 
> On 22/02/2024 17:01, Frank Habicht wrote:
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DBWG mailing list
> DBWG at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg