Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:38:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10". > > > > That might be the case for IPv6, but it's never been a standard > > convention for IPv4; and even for IPv6 it doesn't make any sense > > for a network (as opposed to host) number.
It has always been the convention for IPv4 for as long as the dotted notation existed. In fact it took a while before the full dotted quad notation really became dominant. For a long time it wasn't clear how large a final segment would become the most popular with many people using 16-bit network masks. > I don't know if it's ever been blessed by a formal standard It's blessed by POSIX: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/inet_addr.html I'm really skeptical Vixie would have written things this way. Perhaps somebody at some point later misunderstood the convention and "fixed" the behaviour? -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
