APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
jabley at hopcount.ca
Wed Apr 14 09:35:10 CDT 2010
On 2010-04-14, at 08:45, Dave Hart wrote:
> My eyebrow raised at the leading zero as well, but I'd call it
> ambiguous. 0x14 is unambiguously decimal 20, but 014 is only
> unambiguous in a context that defines leading zero as implying octal.
Note that such a context is inet_ntoa(), at least on BSD-based machines I have handy.
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).
Given the popularity of Octal in address nomenclature in 2010 this seems like a small problem for mail to NANOG. However, if the practice extends to use in contexts which might be machine-readable (e.g. in text files which are auto-curl(1)d out of cron to build filters) then there is potential for hilarity.
More information about the NANOG