At 17:46 04/05/01 +0200, Bergerud wrote:
>hmmm, could this be right..?
>
>D:\>ping 11010001001111011011101011110001
you are not using a binary representation here. you are using a decimal number.
the fact that it only contains zeros and ones does not make it binary:)
so 11010001001111011011101011110001 = 160.86.104.113 on a computer.
the cited example was from a math view point (Smith was talking about
the base 2 number: 11010001001111011011101011110001, not the deciaml
with the same digits).
>Pinging 160.86.104.113 with 32 bytes of data:
>
>Reply from 209.44.32.146: Destination net unreachable.
>Reply from 209.44.32.146: Destination net unreachable.
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
>
>Ping statistics for 160.86.104.113:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 2, Lost = 2 (50% loss),
>Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
>
>
>Why would I get a reply from 209.44.32.146
that's a router saying 160.86.104.113 is unreachable.
> when the example below states
>that 11010001001111011011101011110001 = 209.61.186.121?
see above. On Unix (at least) and in C, the default representation is the
decimal
one.
Anyway, there is no benefit, no reason, and nothing to gain from the binary
representation
of an IP address. the decimal representation is the well-suited one.
in your example, run bc (or any calculator) and you'll see that:
11010001001111011011101011110001 = 160*256^3 + 44*256^2 + 32*256 + 146.
>How do you find the binary for 3510483697? I know how to find the binary
>from 209.61.186.121 - do you need a special tool to find the binary from
>3510483697? or do you simply extend the 124-64-32-16 etc table up..?
why would you need that binary representation?
If really needed: 209*256^3 + 61*256^ + ... and then convert each part to
binary and
sum up the stuff. but that'll drive you nowhere.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
