you can now "ping 1.0" and "ping 1.1"
Huh, I knew CF had 1.0.0.1 but sounds like they're listening on 1.0.0.0 too?
maybe
you ping 1.2 too it seems
this 1.1.1.1 thing made me learn about 9.9.9.9
ping: no address associated with name
ping 1.2 \\ PING 1.2 (1.0.0.2) 56(84) bytes of data. \\ 64 bytes from 1.0.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=10.6 ms
mike-burns: what were you trying to ping?
1.0
OpenBSD.
~% ping 1.0
ping: no address associated with name
ping 1.0 \\ PING 1.0 (1.0.0.0): 56 data bytes \\ 64 bytes from 1.0.0.0: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=8.804 ms
^ OpenBSD ping for me
(OpenBSD 5.8 but whatever, I know it's old)
6.2 GENERIC.MP#312
Fascinating.
Oh huh.
I wonder whether they re-wrote ... something.
Works on 6.0
6.1 fails
Maybe that happened when they merged ping6(8) into ping(8).
6.1 still has ping6 separated (at least as commands go)
(oh they're hardlinked to the same binary)
Right yeah.
That might be it.
"ping(8) and ping6(8) are now the same binary and share the engine." https://www.openbsd.org/61.html
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/ping/ping.c.diff?r1=1.212&r2=1.213 - found it.
<3 you for finding that mike-burns
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/ping/ping.c?rev=1.213&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup - better link.
Eh neither link is perfect.
"Only allow standard dot notation for IPv4 addresses." :/
Is "1.0" not standard dot notation?
Are you about to make me read an RFC?
lol no
I have a hard time believing that "standard dot notation" is an RFC term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-decimal_notation seems to be buried in that
Dot-decimal notation :: Dot-decimal notation is a presentation format for numerical data. It consists of a string of decimal numbers, each pair separated by a full stop (dot).  A common use of dot-decimal notation is in information technology where it is a method of writing numbers in octet-grouped base-10 (decimal) numbers separated by dots (full stops). In computer networking, Internet Protocol Version 4 addresses are commonly written using...
So basically it's an "intermediate representation" that inet_aton was nice enough to decode
"it also supported intermediate syntax forms of octet.24bits (e.g. 10.1234567; for Class A addresses) and octet.octet.16bits (e.g. 172.16.12345; for Class B addresses)"
Ah yeah, right in the manpage -- you can pass a, a.b, a.b.c, or a.b.c.d to inet_aton(3).
I'm still boggled to read materials from a time when the Internet (address allocations etc) could be documented in a short RFC https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790
(Yeah, I'm "young", not yet 32 :P )
I love short RFCs.
I was hoping to find a post on tech@ but alas, nothing. I wonder where those OKs came from ...
ICB I assume
Must be.
How secretive.