[125406] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Habets)
Wed Apr 14 14:32:33 2010
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:31:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Habets <thomas@habets.pp.se>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <3B891736-7081-4224-AC08-2BDF58E46C4B@hopcount.ca>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net,
Srinivas Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.html
Don'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;
