Hi, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > > > However, I do share the concern that there's an ambiguity > > > > in the syntax: "127" can be a jail ID as well as an IP > > > > number (same as 0.0.0.127) or a hostname. Either the > > > > > > actually 127.0.0.0 > > > > I'm afraid I think it is 0.0.0.127. > > 127.0.0.0 would be 2130706432. > > 127.0.0.1 is 0x0000007f.
I'm confused. I assume you meant 127.0.0.0 (not .1). When the input "127" is used when an IP number is expected, it must be interpreted as 0.0.0.127 (which would be 0x7f000000 as in_addr_t). This is required by POSIX/SUSv3. It is correctly explained in our inet_addr() manpage. Of course the in_addr_t of 127.0.0.0 is 0x0000007f, but that's a different thing. > > I'm pretty sure 127.1 is the same as 127.0.0.1. Last > > time I used telnet 127.1 to test things it worked fine. > > > > 127.1.0.0 would be 127.65536. > > re-reading the man page inet(3) it seems you would be right > for 127.0.0.1 == 127.1 -- just that our implementation of > inet_network() doesn't think you are... *sigh* I know this > function. It's from bind sources... You should use inet_addr() instead of inet_network(). inet_addr() returns an IP number in network byte order which is correct input for inet_ntop(). However, inet_network() returns a network number in host byte order which is *not* suitable for inet_ntop(). That's why your test program produces wrong output. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, Bunsenstr. 13, 81735 Muenchen, Germany ``We are all but compressed light'' (Albert Einstein) _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
