Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:45:57 -0500
From:      "Paul T. Root" <ptroot@iaces.com>
To:        Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc:        Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net>, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
Message-ID:  <4360CC05.2070907@iaces.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.62.0510271338440.10652@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
References:  <200510262307.j9QN7G7V014335@drugs.dv.isc.org> <Pine.GSO.4.62.0510271304060.10652@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> <4360C6A7.2080502@iaces.com> <Pine.GSO.4.62.0510271338440.10652@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


Jan Grant wrote:
> ***********************
> This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC-SSM and found to be free of known security risks.
> ***********-***********
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote:
> 
> 
>>man inet_addr
>>
>>and you'll find:
>>
>>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;
>>otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal).
>>
>>
>>So a leading zero means hex. Stop trying to make it look pretty.
>>
>>Standards are a good thing and need to be followed.
> 
> 
> I also found:
> 
> [[[
> STANDARDS
>      The inet_ntop() and inet_pton() functions conform to X/Open Networking
>      Services Issue 5.2 (``XNS5.2'').  Note that inet_pton() does not accept
>      1-, 2-, or 3-part dotted addresses; all four parts must be specified and
>      are interpreted only as decimal values.  This is a narrower input set
>      than that accepted by inet_aton().
> ]]]
> 
> on that same man page :-)

Sure but the hosts(5) man page says that it follows inet_addr(3) spec.
Sorry, I neglected to put that little leap in.


> Cheers,
> jan
> 
> PS. I only raised the issue in case anyone else was bitten by it (which 
> is why a PR might be handy). Having "fixed" /etc/hosts, I don't think 
> this is worth wasting more energy on.

Yeah, you're right there.

-- 
    ______	Paul T. Root
   /    _ \  	1977 MGB
  /  /||  \\
||\/ ||  _ |
||   ||   ||
  \   ||__//
   \______/




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4360CC05.2070907>