It was warned before on this IETF draft, but it was never published: <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-02.txt>
Hugo On 13:54 25/10, Phillip Remaker wrote: > Historically, C uses a 0 to precede an octal number, 0x to precede a > decimal, and 0b for binary. Leading zeroes are otherwise stripped in > numerical representation. > > Since 0x is not accepted, I'd call it a bug and request that the numbers > always get treated as decimal, regardless of leading zeros. > > There's probably some downstream library making the anachronistic > assumption. > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Max Grobecker < > max.grobec...@ml.grobecker.info> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > is there - by standard - a definition on how to represent an IPv4 address? > > > > I have (for example) the IP address "73.0.255.229", which can IMHO also be > > written as "073.000.255.229" as the leading zeroes > > are not giving any changes to the binary representation of this address. > > Am I right on this? > > > > But: When I lookup this IP address on https://stat.ripe.net/073.000. > > 255.229 the first octet is internally getting swapped to "59". > > This can be explained, if you take "073" as an octal value and convert it > > to a decimal value. > > It is definitely a octal-to-decimal conversion thing, as for example also > > the value "010" is getting replaced by "8" and so on. > > > > Now I'm puzzled: Of course, writing IPv4 octets with leading zeroes is not > > very common. > > But: Is it officially prohibited or discouraged? > > > > This weird conversion also happens inside the "geoiplookup" tool by > > MaxMind and I'm not sure if I'm going to be the moron in this story > > or if I found the same bug inside multiple softwares at once ;-) > > > > > > Thanks and greetings from Wuppertal > > Max > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
