[125407] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil Harris)
Wed Apr 14 19:02:35 2010
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:02:20 +0100
From: Neil Harris <neil@tonal.clara.co.uk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <o2j85d954181004140754r1c30f4f6q87782c53de28e510@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 14/04/10 15:54, Dave Hart wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
This is a historical issue with inet_aton(). See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-00 for more
details on the history behind this.
Firefox bug 554596 addresses this problem.
-- N.
