Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts

[Paul T. Root]

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.



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, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> 
>>>On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>>>	Leading zeros are ambigious.  Some platforms treat them as octal
>>>>	others treat them as decimal.
>>>
>>>There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided.  (Perhaps
>>>it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not
>>>correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.)
>>
>>	You want a ambigious example?
>>
>>		192.168.222.012
> 
> 
> It amazed me that no RFC ever appears to have standardised this format 
> (although it is alluded to in passing as being decimal in various other 
> places). Eg, 1035 has:
> 
> [[[
>  The RDATA section of
> an A line in a master file is an Internet address expressed as four
> decimal numbers separated by dots without any imbedded spaces (e.g.,
> "10.2.0.52" or "192.0.5.6").
> ]]]
> 
> (although that's DNS zone file format, not /etc/hosts.)
> 
> 
>>	It's much easier to just reject octal and hexadecimal than
>>	to work out when and when not it is ambigious.  It is also
>>	better to demand all 4 octets.  It also generates less
>>	support complaints.
> 
> 
> I'm happy to reject octal and hex too! Anyway, count this as one (minor) 
> support gripe :-)
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> jan
> 
> 

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