On 07.02.2016 22:05, Brian Kantor wrote:

...

(I think it is a bit strange that the networks that are BGP or IPIP routed would not have to be cleaned)

They do have to be cleaned. - Brian

In Germany only the networks 44.130.224/20 and 44.130.240/21 are managed using the AMPRNet Portal. Everything remaining in 44.130/16 and 44.224/15 is actual not managed using the portal and I hope we can find a way to save the DNS records in both blocks.

At least as of now I don't see a way to mirror our IP-, Subnet- and DNS-information to the portal. Most of it is available on http://hamnetdb.net and during the last national network meeting the question has been raised to make it mandatory (no decision yet) for our national network management.

Since we cleaned up 44.130/16 a while ago, we have some hints for your first cleanup round. Maybe you should consider taking obsolete CNAME- and MX-records into account. Example:

to-be-deleted.txt: g7suh IN A 44.131.254.242 ampr.org: 2e1arm IN CNAME g7suh

So it makes sense to delete the CNAME record as well. MX-records are much more tricky since they sometimes point to an Internet address and it might be hard to find out whether it is still of use. Example:

to-be-deleted.txt: 1.vk2dpg IN A 44.136.52.2 ampr.org: 1.vk2dpg IN A 44.136.52.2 1.vk2dpg IN MX 10 1.vk2dpg 1.vk2dpg IN MX 20 bharg.pcpro.net.au.

"bharg.pcpro.net.au" can be resolved and there is an answer on Port 25 from a mail exchanger. So the second MX-record could still be in use...

We still have some valid MX-records from Germany not cleaned up, since they are still in use. It was quite difficult to hunt information about the usage of the records, but only a few are left over. Maybe Thomas, DL9SAU, does remember some more things we did... As far as I remember it would have been much more tricky to get rid of MX records if the A record information would have been purged before...

73, Jann DG8NGN