#arpnetworks 2018-04-02,Mon

↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls(Click on time to select a line by its url)

WhoWhatWhen
***km_ has left [02:10]
...................................................................................................................... (idle for 9h49mn)
mercutio has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
mercutio has joined #arpnetworks
ChanServ sets mode: +o mercutio
[11:59]
............. (idle for 1h3mn)
RandalSchwartzyou can now "ping 1.0" and "ping 1.1" [13:05]
brycecHuh, I knew CF had 1.0.0.1 but sounds like they're listening on 1.0.0.0 too? [13:14]
RandalSchwartzmaybe [13:24]
................................. (idle for 2h43mn)
mercutioyou ping 1.2 too it seems
this 1.1.1.1 thing made me learn about 9.9.9.9
[16:07]
........ (idle for 35mn)
mike-burnsping: no address associated with name [16:42]
............. (idle for 1h1mn)
***kevr is now known as `0000000000
`0000000000 is now known as `100101011100101
`100101011100101 is now known as kevr
[17:43]
.... (idle for 19mn)
brycecping 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?
[18:02]
mike-burns1.0
OpenBSD.
~% ping 1.0
ping: no address associated with name
[18:03]
brycecping 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)
[18:03]
mike-burns6.2 GENERIC.MP#312
Fascinating.
Oh huh.
I wonder whether they re-wrote ... something.
[18:03]
brycecWorks on 6.0
brycec has a 6.1 host around here somewhere.....
6.1 fails
[18:05]
mike-burnsMaybe that happened when they merged ping6(8) into ping(8). [18:06]
brycec6.1 still has ping6 separated (at least as commands go)
(oh they're hardlinked to the same binary)
[18:07]
mike-burnsRight yeah.
That might be it.
[18:07]
brycec"ping(8) and ping6(8) are now the same binary and share the engine." https://www.openbsd.org/61.html [18:07]
mike-burnshttp://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/ping/ping.c.diff?r1=1.212&r2=1.213 - found it. [18:08]
brycec<3 you for finding that mike-burns [18:08]
mike-burnshttp://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.
[18:08]
brycec"Only allow standard dot notation for IPv4 addresses." :/
Is "1.0" not standard dot notation?
[18:09]
mike-burnsAre you about to make me read an RFC? [18:09]
bryceclol 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
[18:09]
BryceBotDot-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... [18:11]
brycecSo 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)"
[18:13]
mike-burnsAh yeah, right in the manpage -- you can pass a, a.b, a.b.c, or a.b.c.d to inet_aton(3). [18:15]
brycecI'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 )
[18:15]
mike-burnsI love short RFCs.
I was hoping to find a post on tech@ but alas, nothing. I wonder where those OKs came from ...
[18:16]
......... (idle for 41mn)
brycecICB I assume [18:58]
mike-burnsMust be.
How secretive.
[18:58]

↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls(Click on time to select a line by its url)