again... I can't see domain objects for longer/smaller prefixes than /24 in IPv4.
Frank On 06/09/2020 21:33, Frank Habicht wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ DBWG mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg
