question about serial numbers
Bill Larson
wllarso at swcp.com
Tue Jun 29 15:58:10 UTC 1999
In article <T75e3.1003$KM3.238757 at burlma1-snr2>,
Barry Margolin <barmar at bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <37782066.CA1DBAEB at uta.edu>, Craig Dupree <cdupree at uta.edu> wrote:
>>Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>>> DNS will care if you roll over from "99123101" to "00010101".
>>
>>It won't when I restart the daemon, minutes after I make this change.
>
>That's fine if you have enough control of the slave servers. Many people
>don't have the luxury of being able to restart their slave servers whenever
>they want (often they're at the ISP).
You may also be unable to restart a daemon that is running on a stealth
server. In fact, as the operator of the master server, you may not
even be aware of the existance of a stealth slave.
The multistep process to re-sync a serial number should even function
against a stealth server. This is the "correct" solution to decrementing
the serial number on a name server. Is this a correct assumption?
I think the outcome of this whole discussion should be use a serial
number scheme that doesn't have a rollover problem. And if you do have
a rollover problem, correct it soon.
Bill Larson (wllarso at swcp.com)
More information about the bind-users
mailing list