DDNS, Notify and IXFR

Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Sun Aug 15 21:51:49 UTC 1999


Paul;

> > The issues Kevin raised are not the fault of the IXFR protocol.
> 
> agreed.

Thank you. It's a problem between DDNS and NOTIFY.

> > They are due to interactions between BIND's implementations of
> > deferred serial number update, NOTIFY, and IXFR.  Changing the
> > implementation, for example by rate-limiting NOTIFY generation, should
> > solve the problem.
> 
> notify is supposed to be rate-limited (its rfc recommends this, anyway).
> some parts of bind (like after the master has reloaded) have a delay,
> but other parts don't, and neither part rate-limits.  8.2.2 will fix this.

Fix?

If update is done 4 times a second, it is likely that reference to
the updated and unupdated data is referenced a lot more frequently.

Instead, we can simply conclude that we can increment serial number as
frequently as we want, for which purpose, UDP IXFR is specified.

							Masataka Ohta


More information about the bind-workers mailing list