nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: Jim Young via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:47:41 +0000
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 21:55 Chris Adams <cma () cmadams net> wrote:
More than once, I've had to explain why zero-filling octets, like 127.000.000.001 (which still works) or 008.008.008.008 (which does not), is broken.
Zero filling IPv4 is just evil. How about this party trick?
% ping -c 1 010.010.010.010 PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=116 time=27.496 ms --- 010.010.010.010 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 27.496/27.496/27.496/0.000 ms
%
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC borg (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Valdis Klētnieks (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC James R Cutler (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Andy Smith (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Chris Adams (Sep 25)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 26)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Jim Young via NANOG (Sep 26)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Nick Hilliard (Sep 26)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Denys Fedoryshchenko (Sep 22)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Tim Howe (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Tim Howe (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Bjørn Mork (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Saku Ytti (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Fred Baker (Sep 11)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Brian Johnson (Sep 12)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Randy Bush (Sep 12)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 12)