Dear Frank, > On 13 Sep 2020, at 21:55, Frank Habicht <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi AfriNIC Staff, > > found this in the DB: > > domain: 196.163.in-addr.arpa. > descr: Reverse DNS for Nissan South Africa > admin-c: ZRV-AFRINIC > tech-c: ZRV-AFRINIC > zone-c: ZRV-AFRINIC > nserver: ns1.qdata.net > nserver: ns2.qdata.net > notify: ***@nissan.co.za > mnt-by: AFRINIC-HM-MNT > mnt-lower: TF-163-196-MNT > changed: ***@afrinic.net 20050913 > source: AFRINIC > > domain: 196.163.in-addr.arpa > descr: Reverse DNS for Nissan South Africa > admin-c: GH2-AFRINIC > tech-c: GH2-AFRINIC > zone-c: GH2-AFRINIC > nserver: ns1.infovan.co.za > nserver: ns.infovan.co.za > nserver: ns2.infovan.co.za > nserver: ns3.infovan.co.za > notify: ***@nissan.co.za > mnt-by: AFRINIC-HM-MNT > mnt-lower: TF-163-196-MNT > changed: ***@afrinic.net 20050913 > changed: ***@afrinic.net 20070419 > changed: ***@afrinic.net 20081010 > changed: ***@afrinic.net 20090820 > source: AFRINIC > > > Are domain objects with a dot ('.') at the end legal in the DB? RFC 1034 allowed domains with a trailing dot. > Are they ignored when the version without the dot also exists? > Yes they are ignored.
> I believe we shouldn't have both of these in the DB. > +1 Agree. > Would disallowing and deleting all domain objects ending with 'arpa\.' > resolve this issue? > We currently do not allow creation of this type of domains. We are working towards having them deleted by end of October 2020. > 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
