You're replying to a comment by you.

you Permalink
November 14, 2011, 21:09

(Same commenter as previous comment.)

#109 is bad too because other notations for IPs are valid.

Here is one example:

# Find out the IP of
$ dig +short A

# Convert it into another notation
$ python2 -c "print 192*256**3 + 0*256**2 + 43*256**1 + 10*256**0"

# Demo, just to prove that this really works
$ ping 3221236490
PING 3221236490 ( 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from icmp_req=1 ttl=241 time=101 ms
64 bytes from icmp_req=2 ttl=241 time=101 ms
--- 3221236490 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 101.011/101.265/101.519/0.254 ms

Oh and *then* there is IPv6.

Dear Peter Krumin, I know its boring but please take a look at the specs from time to time, especially if you want to publish something like this. This I-don't-care-if-I-violate-the-standard attitude that we see so often these days (especially but not exclusively in corporate environments) really bugs me because in the end we all suffer from it. Right?

Reply To This Comment

(why do I need your e-mail?)

(Your twitter handle, if you have one.)

Type the word "sandbox_277": (just to make sure you're a human)

Please preview the comment before submitting to make sure it's OK.