Here's one for the obscurities wishlist: our NetCaches don't recognise integer representations of IPs. Instead of interpreting 3263497985 as 194.133.7.1, for example, they look for www.3263497985.com.
Although nobody in their right mind would want to do this, people do use it when they want to obscure the tru source of a URL (yes, mainly in dodgy newsgroups, I know).
Later,
Alex.
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Alex French wrote:
Here's one for the obscurities wishlist: our NetCaches don't recognise integer representations of IPs. Instead of interpreting 3263497985 as 194.133.7.1, for example, they look for www.3263497985.com.
Hmmm...
That's kinda interesting seeing as I'm sure NetApp claim to be using a BSD TCP/IP stack...
Go figure...
-marc
Hello Alex,
Here's one for the obscurities wishlist: our NetCaches don't recognise integer representations of IPs. Instead of interpreting 3263497985 as 194.133.7.1, for example, they look for www.3263497985.com.
Although nobody in their right mind would want to do this, people do use it when they want to obscure the tru source of a URL (yes, mainly in dodgy newsgroups, I know).
Later, Alex.
We, a while backt, had a bug open on this. However, after some study, it was decided to not turn the obscurity into a feature :-)
And, from the bug report..
Note that the "inet_aton()" routine in NetApp code was explicitly changed to require at least one "." in an IP address; the comment in the checkin was "error checking". That's why we don't accept dotless numbers as IP addresses.
Hope this helps.
Regards, suresh
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Suresh Padmanabhan wrote:
Note that the "inet_aton()" routine in NetApp code was explicitly changed to require at least one "." in an IP address; the comment in the checkin was "error checking". That's why we don't accept dotless numbers as IP addresses.
I sincerely hope that most of your check-in comments are a bit more desciptive than this. OTOH, are non-doted IP adresses valid URLs? If they are then I think we have a bug at hand. If they aren't, then good job guys, keep it up.
Tom
I sincerely hope that most of your check-in comments are a bit more desciptive than this.
It depends on the person doing the checkin.
I happen to be one of the people who likes to write fairly descriptive checkin comments.
Not everybody here does. I'm not sure whether I'm in the majority.
OTOH, are non-doted IP adresses valid URLs? If they are then I think we have a bug at hand. If they aren't, then good job guys, keep it up.
Well, RFC 1123 "Requirements for Internet hosts - application and support" says:
2.1 Host Names and Numbers
The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal syntax.
Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters.
Whenever a user inputs the identity of an Internet host, it SHOULD be possible to enter either (1) a host domain name or (2) an IP address in dotted-decimal ("#.#.#.#") form. The host SHOULD check the string syntactically for a dotted-decimal number before looking it up in the Domain Name System.
DISCUSSION: This last requirement is not intended to specify the complete syntactic form for entering a dotted-decimal host number; that is considered to be a user-interface issue. For example, a dotted-decimal number must be enclosed within "[ ]" brackets for SMTP mail (see Section 5.2.17). This notation could be made universal within a host system, simplifying the syntactic checking for a dotted-decimal number.
If a dotted-decimal number can be entered without such identifying delimiters, then a full syntactic check must be made, because a segment of a host domain name is now allowed to begin with a digit and could legally be entirely numeric (see Section 6.1.2.4). However, a valid host name can never have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the highest-level component label will be alphabetic.
which, as I read it, says "101" is a legitimate host name - it might mean "101.yourdomain.com" within your domain, for example - rather than being something to be interpreted as an IP address.
-
Alex French -
guy＠netapp.com -
Marc Nicholas -
Suresh Padmanabhan -
tkaczma＠gryf.net