Hi, On 06/11/2020 01:55, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, > Frank Habicht <[email protected]> wrote: > >> in the file i found: >> ; Source AFRINIC >> 203.196.in-addr.arpa. NS ns1.ati.tn. >> 203.196.in-addr.arpa. NS ns2.ati.tn. >> >> if there is a delegation for the "/16 equivalent" then one can't create >> a delegation for an enclosed "/24 equivalent" zone. [1] >> >> So probably the >>> domain: 35.203.196.in-addr.arpa >> object shouldn't have been allowed to be created / imported from RIPE... > > Let me just say at the outset that I may perhaps not be on entirely > solid ground here... I may need to drag out my Cricket book and double > check this... but my belief at the moment is that what you just said > is not actually correct, that DNS is a bit like routing, where a more > specific can effectively override a less specific, and that there is > nothing to prevent separate and different delegations to both a > containing /16 and also to a /24 within that /16.
I have no idea why Cricket .... ;-) But have to say I agree. I was writing what I was writing based on the 2nd paragraph from Anand in https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2020-October/006687.html which maybe I have misinterpreted. > Regardless of whether that is correct or not, as I have already noted, > there is clearly a mismatch between what is present in the AFRINIC > WHOIS data base and the data that is present within the various files > within ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/zones/ and this mismatch, this > anomaly, should be addressed in some manner, either by removing invalid > entries from the WHOIS or by adding entries to the zone files. Completely agree. Frank _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
