APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
neil at tonal.clara.co.uk
Wed Apr 14 18:02:20 CDT 2010
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 (184.108.40.206): 56 data bytes
>> C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 014.0.0.01
>> Pinging 220.127.116.11 with 32 bytes of data:
>> Connecting to 014.0.0.1|18.104.22.168|:80...
>> Connecting to 014.0.0.1 (014.0.0.1)|22.214.171.124|: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.
> 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.
More information about the NANOG