You can also do hex, fwiw: $ ping 172.24.178.124 PING 172.24.178.124 (172.24.178.124) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 172.24.178.124: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.046 ms 64 bytes from 172.24.178.124: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
$ ping 172.24.178.0x7C PING 172.24.178.0x7C (172.24.178.124) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 172.24.178.124: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.039 ms 64 bytes from 172.24.178.124: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.038 ms fyi, spammers used to use this to get around simplistic spam filters which only looked for decimal IP addresses. In SpamAssassin, we would canonify all these things to decimal before running the rules. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Mike Julian <m...@mikejulian.com> wrote: > Yep, that's right. > > Ping something like 192.168.011.1 and you'll see it actually pings > 192.168.9.1 > > If you give it a number that's not octal, then it treats it as a hostname > because it's an invalid number. > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Yves Dorfsman <y...@zioup.com> wrote: > >> On 2013-04-25 09:12, Ski Kacoroski wrote: >> >>> Mike, >>> >>> I get a different behavior: >>> >>> On LinuxMint Nadia (3.5.0-27 kernel, ping utility, iputils-sss20101006), >>> Debian 6, Oracle linux 5 (kernel 2.6.18), solaris 9, Windows 7, and Mac >>> OS >>> 10.8 I get: >>> >>> ping 10.1.2.27, 10.001.2.27, 10.1.002.27 works >>> >>> ping 10.1.2.027 does this: PING 10.1.2.027 (10.1.2.23) 56(84) bytes of >>> data. >>> which is consistent with 027 octal being changed into decimal 23. >>> >>> I am not sure why the conversion does not happen on the other octets. >>> >> >> >> Because 02 = 2 and 01 = 1 (octal and decimal are the same for n < 7)? >> >> -- >> Yves. >> http://www.SollerS.ca/ >> Unix/Linux and Python specialist in >> Calgary. >> >> http://blog.zioup.org/ >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.lopsa.org >> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss<https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >> http://lopsa.org/ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.lopsa.org > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
