From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "0/0". Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:52:47 +0200 Message-ID: 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 Cc: Herbert Xu , Stephen Hemminger , Krzysztof Oledzki , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:38874 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750902AbYJOSwt (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:52:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1224086831.3984.196.camel@achroite> (Ben Hutchings's message of "Wed\, 15 Oct 2008 17\:07\:10 +0100") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. -- Krzysztof Halasa