nanog mailing list archives
RE: Inane ... even for NANOG.
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:43:58 -0800
-----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank () att net il] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:35 AM To: Roeland Meyer Cc: 'Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu' Subject: Re: Inane ... even for NANOG. On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:57 AMOn Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:22:52 PST, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>said:16.1.16.1; I don't Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course.HEX:=="313631313631"I think the intended value was 0x10011001And the signifigance of this bit pattern is ...? [from too many decades doing assembly level communicationsdrivers to handleboth ASCII/EIA and EBCDIC. Nothing there is either specialor amusing,anymore. Not for decades.] so ... who is Fifi?15 in hex is x'0f'. 16 is x'1f'. 15.1.15.1 would be fifi. 16.1.16.1 is something else.
15 = 0x0f 16 = 0x10 011001011001 it still makes no sense.
Current thread:
- Inane ... even for NANOG. Roeland Meyer (Mar 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Inane ... even for NANOG. Roeland Meyer (Mar 15)
- RE: Inane ... even for NANOG. Roeland Meyer (Mar 15)