On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:45:21AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:37 AM Roberto C. Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:16:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Brian <kimh...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > We just ran the latest updates for Debian Buster on one of our DNS > > > > servers running bind9 and one of the slave domains is failing with this > > > > message: > > > > > > > > Aug 2 07:05:20 <hostname> named[76759]: transfer of '<domain name>/IN' > > > > from <ip address>#53: Transfer status: too many records > > > > > > > > There are about 1,400 records in that domain which has never posed a > > > > problem in the past. > > > > > > > > We have tried force transfers, purging journal files and nothing seems > > > > to work. > > > > > > > > We rolled back the update to one performed earlier in the month and now > > > > everything is working. > > > > > > > > Anybody have any idea what is going on with this latest update? > > > > > > I think this might be "bind9 update 9.16.50 -- too many record" from > > > the debian-security mailing list at > > > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2024/07/msg00003.html>. > > > > > Which seems unlikely on a system running buster. > > Maybe I am mis-parsing things, but the backporting to older Debian > versions is discussed, starting with the question, "Would you be > willing to backport the configuration of 9.20 so that companies using > larger record number per name can still use bind9 with security > update?" The first answer appears at > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2024/07/msg00004.html>. > I agree that it is discussed as you say. However, that discussion is about backporting the 9.20 configuration changes to bind9 in *bullseye*, while the OP in this thread indicated that the problem was is in bind9 on a system running *buster*. The last bind9 update on buster [0] was uploaded on 2024-05-17, and did not involve the 9.20 configuration changes. So, the OP should be considering what else has changed that may have caused the observed failure.
Regards, -Roberto [0] https://tracker.debian.org/news/1530724/accepted-bind9-19115p4dfsg-51deb10u11-source-into-oldoldstable/ -- Roberto C. Sánchez
