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.
Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DBWG mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg
