From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "0/0". Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:39:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20081027103950.7eba4fe1@extreme> References: <20081014104621.3c2ce4d3@extreme> <20081015014624.GA3251@gondor.apana.org.au> <1224086831.3984.196.camel@achroite> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ben Hutchings , Herbert Xu , Krzysztof Oledzki , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Halasa Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:44674 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750727AbYJ0Rjw (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:39:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:52:47 +0200 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Ben Hutchings writes: > > > It's a Berkeley extension which spread via BSD and its inet_aton() > > function. I don't believe it's specified in any RFC. > > You may be right, I won't start searching now :-) > Anyway it was like that for years and I guess we shouldn't change it > (except perhaps for removing). > > > No, a single number is treated by inet_aton() as a 32-bit address, so 10 > > is equivalent to 0.0.0.10. > > Hmm, I remember some routes being used without a dot, as a single > number, but OTOH you're right, it was also possible to ping > 12345678. Perhaps 10 -> 10.0 was specific to something rather than > used generally, I don't know. I ended up putting in a version similar to the original code but with more error checking so it would not accept 259.1 etc.