[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: named/BIND 8.1.2-5 won't accept inbound zone xfers



Ian Eure <ieure@crosssound.narrows.com> writes:

> I'm having a really nasty time getting my BIND zone slave to update from the
> zone master. the slave keeps saying:
> ---
> Jan  9 13:24:21 Phaktory named[145]: Zone "zone.domain" (class 1) SOA serial# (10719991) rcvd from [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx] is < ours (121219981)
> --- (names/ips changed to protect he innocent)
                                       ^^^^^^^^  guilty?

The serial number must increase for the zones to be updated.  The
usual method would make the serial numbers above something like
1999010701 and 1998121201, which means that the slave's old serial
number would be less than the new one on the master.

For example, using my ISP:

$ dig -t soa clear.net.nz @dns1.clear.net.nz
[...]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
clear.net.nz.           22h47m53s IN SOA  dns1.clear.net.nz. hostmaster.clear.net.nz. (
                                        1998122102      ; serial
                                        2H              ; refresh
                                        10M             ; retry
                                        3D              ; expiry
                                        1D )            ; minimum
[...]

If they updated their records tomorrow, the serial number would change
to 1999011101, and dns2.clear.net.nz would pick up the changes because
1999011101 (SOA record on dns1.clear.net.nz) > 1998122102 (local SOA
record on dns2.clear.net.nz).

Anyway, the records on the master are *broken*. You should change the
serial number to 1999011001 (which is greater than 121219981), or
you'll have to try manually getting BIND to forget its cached zone
files and get the whole lot from the master again.  (And you'll have
to do this every year.  You *don't* need these problems in Jan 2000.)

-- 
	 Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

		  Larry froze.  Was the bag a trap?
  He could see the way in, but the other end appeared to be sealed.


Reply to: