I forgot to mention that there are a total of 9 reverse-DNS delegations for /128 prefixes.
the 2nd one I checked was not lame. didn't check more. domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa domain: b.3.3.0.f.4.e.f.f.f.3.4.3.c.4.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.2.8.e.4.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.2.a.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.8.2.a.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.2.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.f.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.d.6.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa PS: that's from an FTP database from August 20th. Frank On 06/09/2020 21:22, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hi AfriNIC staff, > > since when is the 'e-mail:' attribute for 'person' objects mandatory? > > I just found > nic-hdl: SE1-AFRINIC > that does not have an email. > > It's got a GENERATED maintainer, and I'm also wondering how these new > maintainer credentials were communicated to the "person". > > Yes, I don't want to rely on 'changed:' attributes. > > Staff: > How many 'person' objects don't have an 'e-mail:' attribute ? > > > [slowly getting to another issue....] > > Why did I get to check this person object at all....? > > Because in a domain object it is > tech-c: SE1-AFRINIC > zone-c: SE1-AFRINIC > > > Also, the domain object is since "2020-02-02 02:02" > ( nice time stamp!! ;-) ) marked as all 'nserver' being *lame*. > So when is it meant to get deleted? > I hope we're not waiting for the tech-c or zone-c to respond to the > email, which we could not send, because the 'person' doesn't have an > email address? > > But what really got me to check the domain object: > > domain: > 0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.f.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa > > yes, it's a bit long. a reverse DNS delegation for a /128 > > This is probably "legal". > But: > a) if disputable 'usefulness', and > b) I see "tremendous' potential for growth in the DB - in a bad way > > > All, Staff and WG: > > should creation of domain objects be limited to certain prefix sizes? > > > Thanks, > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > DBWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg > _______________________________________________ DBWG mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg
