Hi all,
I've seen another few domain objects for /64's created :-(
Should we keep allowing this?
Regards,
Frank
On 24/03/2024 21:04, Frank Habicht wrote:
Hi DBWG,
I didn't see any responses to below email.
But I've seen some new objects created recently - [1]
Is there no interest to stop objects like [1] from being created?
I'm conflicted as in both thinking a change is called for and trying to
be a neutral chair.
So I think if there's no response, then I can not be an impartial chair
and declare consensus.
There seem to be 11 domain objects for /128's.
There seem to be 108 domain objects for longer than /48.
I.e. not a current problem as much as a potential problem when any
average LIR can create 2^96 domain objects.
Sorry. That's the number of objects for /128's to create.
Total of 2^97-1 objects can be created when including all the shorter ones.
Thanks,
Frank
[1]
domain:
5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.6.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
descr: BTCL INTERNAL6
nserver: ns4.btc.bw
nserver: ns1.btc.bw
nserver: vpsm.btc.bw
org: ORG-BTC2-AFRINIC
admin-c: BM16-AFRINIC
admin-c: OSD1-AFRINIC
admin-c: IO10-AFRINIC
tech-c: BM16-AFRINIC
tech-c: OSD1-AFRINIC
tech-c: IO10-AFRINIC
zone-c: BM16-AFRINIC
zone-c: OSD1-AFRINIC
zone-c: IO10-AFRINIC
mnt-by: TF-196-1-130-0-196-1-133-255-MNT
mnt-lower: TF-196-1-130-0-196-1-133-255-MNT
changed: [email protected] 20240319
source: AFRINIC
On 22/02/2024 17:01, Frank Habicht wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
DBWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg
