Dear Frank, Thanks for the proposition, it is well noted.
I will ping you off list so we can discuss further on that. Best regards, -- _______________________________________________________________ Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet IT Infrastructure Unit Manager, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5100 / 403 5115 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia ______________________________________________________ On 10/09/2020 22:30, Frank Habicht wrote: > Dear Cedrick, > > It is ok with me if you use one of the 2 VMs in Dar es Salaam for auth > DNS to also do the digging for the lameness, ie as a second node. > > I trust these are sufficiently diverse from your 1st node, they are in > AS327844, with upstreams AS37084 and AS30844. > > Hope that can help. > > Regards, > Frank > > > On 10/09/2020 21:20, Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet wrote: >> Dear dbwg, >> >> >> Referring to the previous email from my colleague Simon. >> >> We indeed delayed the deletion of the lame records for multiple reason >> among them the absence of a second nodes. We had some security >> challenges that needed to be addressed before being able to plan the >> second nodes. >> >> We do apologize for the delay on the second node implementation and rest >> tune as deployment will be scheduled very soon. And usual, announced on >> the usual channels. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________________ >> Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet >> IT Infrastructure Unit Manager, AFRINIC Ltd. >> t: +230 403 5100 / 403 5115 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: >> www.afrinic.net >> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia >> ______________________________________________________ >> >> On 07/09/2020 16:59, Simon Seruyinda wrote: >>> Hi Frank, >>> >>> The e-mail attribute was made mandatory in July 2012. >>> I have done a quick check in the database and we have 1048 person objects >>> without the email attribute. >>> Most of these objects belong to legacy resource holders and were imported >>> into the database during the initial setup. >>> Many are referenced in different objects. Below are some stats regarding >>> number of objects that are referencing these person objects as >>> admin-c,tech-c or zone-c. >>> >>> zone-c: >>> =============== >>> 51 domain objects >>> >>> tech-c >>> =============== >>> as-block 248 >>> as-set 11 >>> domain 35 >>> inetnum 574 >>> mntner 60 >>> org 162 >>> role 7 >>> route-set 6 >>> >>> admin-c: >>> ============== >>> as-block 248 >>> as-set 11 >>> aut-num 2 >>> domain 49 >>> inet6num 1 >>> inetnum 731 >>> mntner 71 >>> org 137 >>> role 4 >>> route-set 6 >>> >>> There is an ongoing project internally focused on contacting these legacy >>> holders in order to update their contact details in the database. Another >>> activity, under the scope of the whois business rules inconsistencies is >>> also planned to get the emails updated for any resource members who may be >>> having no emails in the any of their person objects. Incases where efforts >>> to get in touch with the resource holder proves futile, a temporary measure >>> using AFRINIC’s placeholder email accounts is undertaken. These activities >>> are expected to decrease the number significantly. >>> >>> With regards to the lame delegation handling, we are not doing deletion yet >>> since we are running only one node to do the lame delegation checks. Once >>> the second node is setup, we shall begin the deletion otherwise for now we >>> run the risk of a few false positives. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Regards; >>> Simon >>> >>>> On 6 Sep 2020, at 22:22, Frank Habicht <[email protected]> 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
