Hi, On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 02:51:54AM +0200, denis walker wrote: > If it was a week's work for 2 engineers to build some complex solution I > would probably agree with you. But in reality, to set a limit would > probably be a couple of lines of code and maybe 2 test cases in the test > suite. You can always make a case for "why bother to set limits on > anything?" But do we want anyone to be able to mess up the DB > intentionally, or with a script that went wild, and create hundreds of > these objects? When a couple of lines of code would cap it at a reasonable > level. I see it as tidying up loose ends while reviewing the status rules.
I find it very unlikely that a script-went-wild would create "hundreds"
of *deeply nested* objects.
Now, a script-went-wild that creates thousands of leaf-level inetnum:
objects ("let's just sync all IPv4 /32 from our IPAM to the RIPE DB")
is somewhat likely - but this won't be stopped by introducing limits on
the nesting level of sub-allocations.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard,
Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
