Timeline for Are IP addresses with and without leading zeroes the same?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1, 2015 at 23:39 | comment | added | xR34P3Rx | I assume you're taking about Linux. I have tried 192.168.001.001 | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 22:51 | comment | added | Random832 | @xR34P3Rx What specific IP addresses did you try to do it with and have it work? Just because 001 seems to work doesn't mean that 008 or 012 will work, given the concerns people have mentioned about octal (which are not windows-specific). | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 23:31 | history | edited | xR34P3Rx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 68 characters in body
|
| Dec 30, 2014 at 2:34 | comment | added | xR34P3Rx | Yea, i double checked in windows and yes, the 3 digit method doesn't work, only in Linux. | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 16:06 | comment | added | Tonny | @MarchHo As of Windows Vista they will be taken as "doesn't look to be a valid ip, so it has to be a FQDN". Windows will attempt a DNS lookup for the bad IP-address. XP tried to make a number out of it regardless leading to weird results. | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 13:35 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @MarchHo: Yes, that's what we are all saying. | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 13:29 | comment | added | March Ho | @LightnessRacesinOrbit Actually, the given example will work even if you zero-pad them, at least in Windows and Debian (I don't have a Mac). The bug/feature only occurs if the number is zero padded, and the zero padded number is greater than 7 (as octal and decimal would be identical). If you attempt to enter a valid decimal address zero-padded (eg 012.034.056.078), it will still attempt to parse this as octal, resulting in failure of the ping function. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 23:31 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
IP is a protocol; it is IP addresses that are static, blocked, assigned, bound, fetched, accessed, tried, resolved, checked, banned, generated, tracked, chosen, detected, dynamic, grabbed, scanned, whitelisted, have different representations, that devices have, etc., not the protocol itself.
|
| Dec 28, 2014 at 22:27 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @xR34P3Rx: No, Greenstone is right. Check again. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 4:12 | comment | added | xR34P3Rx | @GreenstoneWalker I've done it in Linux and it worked fine. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 4:09 | comment | added | Greenstone Walker | Using ping with 3-digit numbers may not work. It may treat them as octal. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 3:07 | comment | added | Brock Vond | I did yeah - lol... sorry. Both answers are def right but I was looking for a deeper answer so I choose AthomSfere's answer. Thank you all I'd up vote you if I could. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 2:57 | comment | added | Patrick Seymour | @Brock Vond: Yes, except I think you transposed the 186 and 168 accidentally. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 2:55 | comment | added | Brock Vond | Ok... so for stupid sake... 192.186.002.001 is the same as 192.168.2.1? | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 2:52 | comment | added | Patrick Seymour | This is true. The dotted decimal format, as it is known, is really only for humans. Devices on the network do not use this representation of an IP address. | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 2:46 | history | answered | xR34P3Rx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |