[66372] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mans Nilsson)
Thu Jan 8 12:26:57 2004
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:26:07 +0100
From: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@sunet.se>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1073550954@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
X-synced-from: Pilsnet
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--RhUH2Ysw6aD5utA4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones Date: Thu=
, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:35:54AM -0800 Quoting Owen DeLong (owen@delong.com):
> I don't see any real reason for Verisign to do this, other than possibly=
=20
> some
> lazy coding in automation tools (that SN is slightly easier to use as a
> timestamp in automation than one that is the encoded date). It doesn't=
=20
> provide
> the functionality they are striving for.
Oh, but I can see why.=20
The primary master server's implementor might choose to autoincrement
the SOA SERIAL if any of the following events occurs:
(1) Each update operation.
(2) A name, RR or RRset in the zone has changed and has subsequently
been visible to a DNS client since the unincremented SOA was
visible to a DNS client, and the SOA is about to become visible
to a DNS client.
(3) A configurable period of time has elapsed since the last update
operation. This period shall be less than or equal to one third
of the zone refresh time, and the default shall be the lesser of
that maximum and 300 seconds.
(4) A configurable number of updates has been applied since the last
SOA change. The default value for this configuration parameter
shall be one hundred (100).
Vixie, et. al: RFC 2136 Dynamic Updates in the Domain=20
Name System (DNS UPDATE), pp16-17=20
(formatting slightly edited)
Given:
a/ The size of the .com and .net zones and the hassle associated with doing
legacy-style maintenance of zones that size,
b/ The desire of customers with the usual bad planning habits (ie. they want
DNS delegation changes like yesterday and what is this TTL crap?)=20
=2E.it is obvious that an administrator of a large, frequently updated zone=
=20
would want to prepare for dynamic updates. One of the constraints with=20
date-style serial numbers (the only situation when .us residents write=20
dates in the sensible ISO standard YYYYMMDD style ;-) is that the size of=
=20
the SOA serial number limits the number of zone generations to 100
per 24h period, which might be an issue when using dynamic updates
especially if they are being processed automatically.
Again, this is not a problem, not something to bother about, and the suits=
=20
at Verisign will not break things by this.=20
--=20
M=E5ns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC
MN1334-RIPE
I'm wet! I'm wild!
--RhUH2Ysw6aD5utA4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE//ZKv02/pMZDM1cURAtjyAJ9tjpLodpuxacd18UpVhCC6P5MXvQCeLUSU
kklu0xR9XOqFEtfHesRUcmE=
=KABW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--RhUH2Ysw6aD5utA4--
