BIND problem

[Simon Waters]

Brad Knowles wrote:
> 
> At 11:45 PM -0400 8/1/01, David Kirk wrote:
> 
> >  It seems like using date as serial # - such as in the YYYYMMDDNN
> >  configuration as suggested - you are already set up much closer to the
> >  boundaries of what is valid, whereas using a much smaller integer just
> >  seems to make more sense in avoiding this pitfall.  You're less likely
> >  to violate the constraint, I think, working from a smaller starting point.

We aren't even close to the boundaries using this format.

Whilst version control is important, this format is not about
version control, it lets others know when you last changed the
DNS, even people the other side of the planet who are just
struggling to send you e-mail or visit your web site.

If I had a penny for every posting in this newsgroup where the
SOA of the zones involved showed yesterdays/todays date.
 
>         Besides, YYYYMMDDNN would allow you to have a hundred updates in
> a single day before you would potentially have problems, and will
> continue working just fine until sometime in the year 2038 (when the
> 32-bit integer quantity would overflow).

Come on Brad, January 2038 is 2^31 seconds since the start of
1970, nothing to do with YYYYMMDDNN convention. This quantity is
an unsigned 32 bit integer and the above convention will work
until the end of 4294 AD, whether the rest of the infrastructure
involved in DNS will last that long is another question.
 
Agreed a hundred changes a day may not be enough especially on
one of my bad typing days *8-)

-- 
Are you using the Internet to best effect ? www.eighth-layer.com
Tel: +44(0)1395 232769      ICQ: 116952768
Moderated discussion of teleworking at news:uk.business.telework