Joseph S D Yao wrote:

>On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 02:27:13PM -0700, Keith Woodworth wrote:
>
>
>>Moved some servers around and running BIND 8.4.6 and I just reloaded a
>>zone and get serial number too big.
>>
>>19990301242
>>
>>is the current serial number. I dont recall the other BIND server that was
>>authoritiative complaining, which is running: 8.3.4.
>>
>>How can I recover or fix this particular message? A google search for
>>bind serial number too big is less than helpful.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Keith
>>
>>

>
>A convention which you may have been following is:
>
> YYYYMMDDnn
> 2005050600
>
>This is designed to nicely keep us under (2^31-1):
> 2147483647
>for another few years; hopefully not only my kids but any grandkids will
>be out of college by then, and I'll be retired. ;-)
>
>For some reason, though, you've added on an extra digit.
>
> YYYYMMDDnn
> 19990301242
>
>Earlier versions of BIND may not have complained about this, but just
>let you go on using
> (19990301242 (mod 2^32)) == 2810432058 == -1484535238.
>This IS an illegal value, though ...
>
>See the aforementioned documents on how to correct this with least
>disruption via expiring zones.
>

Not to take this off on a tangent, but why do some people invest so much
time and effort trying to use their SOA serial numbers as version
control and/or history mechanisms? Dynamic Update pretty much throws
that out the window anyway, and if you're *really* serious about that
kind of stuff, you should be keeping history, change logs, audit logs,
etc. in the backend of your DNS maintenance system; a serial number
alone isn't sufficient to reconstruct who changed what, in what
sequence, etc. anyway...

- Kevin