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 (12.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 014.0.0.01
Pinging 12.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Connecting to 014.0.0.1|12.0.0.1|:80...
Connecting to 014.0.0.1
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Joe Abley wrote:
From inet(3):
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 numbe
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 14:35 UTC, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> PING 014.0.0.1 (12.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
> C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 014.0.0.01
> Pinging 12.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
> Connecting to 014.0.0.1|12.0.0.1|:80...
> Connecting to 014.0.0.1 (014.0.0.1)|14.0.0.1|:80...
>
On 4/14/2010 09:35, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 13:45, Dave Hart wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:20 UTC, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi wrote to SANOG:
>>>
014/8
223/8
>>> Sunny,
>>>
>>> Please be careful about
On 14/04/2010 13:45, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:20 UTC, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi wrote to SANOG:
>>
>>> 014/8
>>> 223/8
>>>
>> Sunny,
>>
>> Please be careful about how you write this. "014" is formally an octal
>> repr
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
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:20 UTC, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi wrote to SANOG:
>> 014/8
>> 223/8
>
> Sunny,
>
> Please be careful about how you write this. "014" is formally an octal
> representation, and what you've written there actually means that APNIC h
On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi wrote:
> APNIC received the following IPv4 address blocks from IANA in April
> 2010 and will be making allocations from these ranges in the near
> future:
>
> 014/8
> 223/8
Sunny,
Please be careful about how you write this. "014" is formally an octal
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 05:02:10PM +1000,
Skeeve Stevens wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> As the subject says, APNIC was allocated 14/8 and 223/8 today...
Actually, it was a few days ago.
> Not sure why I haven't seen any announcements about it...
There have been announcements (h
Hey all,
As the subject says, APNIC was allocated 14/8 and 223/8 today... which does
seems a little close after 1/8 and 27/8 in January 2010 - since 1/8 hasn't
started, I'm surprised about the new ones.
Not sure why I haven't seen any announcements about it... just thought I'd
break the news..
10 matches
Mail list logo
