nanog mailing list archives
Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
From: Dave Hart <davehart () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:54:11 +0000
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 14:35 UTC, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
PING 014.0.0.1 (12.0.0.1): 56 data bytes C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 014.0.0.01 Pinging 12.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data: Connecting to 014.0.0.1|12.0.0.1|:80... Connecting to 014.0.0.1 (014.0.0.1)|14.0.0.1|:80... When it comes to IP addresses, its not history, its important :)
Good point. In most of these classic utility contexts, octal is generally accepted. 32-bit unsigned decimal representation has provided obfuscation for fun and profit in HTTP URIs. I'm sure you can find some software that still accepts it, and some that doesn't. For me, with no proxy, Chrome and IE both accept a non-dotted numeric IPv4 URI, but rewrite it in the address bar to the familiar dotted quad format. FireFox shows an error page that appears equivalent to: <h1>Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)</h1> FireFox is probably violating some spec. Thankfully. Cheers, Dave Hart
Current thread:
- APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Skeeve Stevens (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Stephane Bortzmeyer (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Nick Hilliard (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Dave Hart (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Thomas Habets (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Vincent Hoffman (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Larry Sheldon (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Dave Hart (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Neil Harris (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Nick Hilliard (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Stephane Bortzmeyer (Apr 14)