On 07/09/2020 17:21, Ben Maddison wrote:
Hi Simon, all,
On 09/07, Simon Seruyinda wrote:
Hi Frank,
<snip/>
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.
I would align with the minimum allocation size (/48, right?).
It's conceivable that a resource holder might want to delegate down
further, but that, I believe, should be a task for the operator's
nameservers.
So,
I apparently was wrong assuming something was already implemented.
I've just seen that a domain object for a /128 was created yesterday.
I think we can now start a 1-week last call on the suggestion from Ben
(yes, from long ago) to limit domain objects for IPv6 (i.e. ending in
.ip6.arpa) to be covering no smaller(longer) prefixes than the minimum
assignment size (currently /48)
I propose, if consensus:
- domain objects with .ip6.arpa can not have more than 12 hexits when
created
- staff to contact owners of the domain objects with more than 12 hexits
to create an object covering their allocation/assignment and
eventually delete the domain object covering an unnecessarily specific
prefix
There are 110 if my grep counted correctly.
Surely from much fewer organisations.
Regards,
Frank
_______________________________________________
DBWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg
