From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 17295 invoked from network); 7 May 2022 19:53:34 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 May 2022 19:53:34 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2DF679CF29; Sun, 8 May 2022 05:53:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2319CEEF; Sun, 8 May 2022 05:51:00 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="oqTXBMFv"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5E3129CEEF; Sun, 8 May 2022 05:50:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B0BD9CEEE for ; Sun, 8 May 2022 05:50:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id p26so4374563lfh.10 for ; Sat, 07 May 2022 12:50:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jNEP+5a0EsGnQX9Rf4nhWw5hfTYCbVhAYdGA+cKuJeU=; b=oqTXBMFvSWjMJCki7nflo2Pby48vZ+JiWWIfGnj35MRmvKuM5QLRPq85DvkZFVSpCA GZUzg77hpKohAs1ofJaHSuumRFo//45VLiSXZRX5GsEv2JWS2eRNKdZuJSfzIAZOY8gq mOVJD+YGZ1WlH9obQ7Huf30LxEvvUsFPWmB0ix3gKeEKMWXE1sBTWcwVtREDt2EUguJL MJeeiQFIkHrfi7JVehmU+pJwCZTDG7B+jJz/d7vUPzaRvKBkgRa0CcPeoi5kwNkqbuYl GqdMW1fiVOLbWkazm9mSAZWFk7mVgCsHwv5JKTgorhmFy5oY8ZMT50jiMBRW79DW7wNF GXjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jNEP+5a0EsGnQX9Rf4nhWw5hfTYCbVhAYdGA+cKuJeU=; b=cfUGLk5gsYkkz27ljr29PLCGZDhXsHNza8FDx3m40Pluoc5wpu/iEBMtbHSpEU30Vl f5h4nM2x+cz/Iux1gdPQDWecaA843poYK3IzayuPgUYDAfRKeD7PzvdsrLmNxZqWCdNd T/U4jgXaMTvtHy6FON4YyQYSsAGYXZ68XbSj+YMhuJn/4p50Oa+eRI9Zrkb2W4v9XPgv KaMnsqsoXFqlMETI9I7ffurI+8zlWxVmClC2R6+GcRHd4f49ZeAffwZ29ZI3UHke8d8K +12iznRCVFnVDtxfB9GHg4RQV1Bg+gVeVHeLz+FZbqfRufdSmdEDBKeDMWU69eoo4laW E3KA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FgdIC1pbo74yh4VD/nkUJclxxi1qT5K2zEOY6oLcLf5s7OfQ+ ZlkVMnN5BDoxltTL6ntOCz0okA3IGfu0mV7DIbEuahI9m8U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxEGjPnAx0jU7CmSv3I0mYcEvjZ51Eqn8hmsY0be3AYzLJGqtMswJuQoTUQ9/9P4Zg9sf7RoHH8h3CWEHP7j8s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3406:b0:473:ce5f:7945 with SMTP id i6-20020a056512340600b00473ce5f7945mr6923147lfr.636.1651953055735; Sat, 07 May 2022 12:50:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: ron minnich Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 12:50:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] conventions around zero padding in ip4 X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" here's a simple example: rminnich@a300:~/tamago/t9$ ping 127.1 PING 127.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.056 ms telnet 127.1 22 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to 127.1. All plan 9 programs I try parse 127.1 as 127.0.0.1 I first learned to use this convention in a BSD world, later on sunos. Interesting, the things you think are a standard, and are actually just a convention! On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 12:15 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 10:23 AM ron minnich wrote: >> >> IP4 padding came up recently: the ip command interprets 10.2 as >> 10.2.0.0, whereas most things (golang libraries, ping, ...) interpret >> it as 10.0.0.2. The latter interpretation accords with what I learned >> 40y ago. > > > 10.2 is ambiguous. In a network context, it means, typically, 10.2.0.0/16 (though your mileage may vary). > In a host context, it means 10.0.0.2. It's this confusion that has lead to many efforts > to outright kill this notation. > >> >> But, I find myself wondering: where was the first use of the IP4 zero >> padding convention? > > > I know that it was around in the late 80s on TOPS-20 TCP/IP at Stanford, and in 4.2BSD (4.1c?). It may have also been in use at MIT. It's usage pre-dates my 1984 joining of the internet... > > Warner