Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:41:15 +0000 From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw table add problem Message-ID: <20131125154110.GA32738@anubis.morrow.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <1385391778.1220.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <CAAcX-AGDZbFn5RmhLBBn2PPWRPcsFUnea5MgTc7nuXGD8Ge53A@mail.gmail.com> <52911993.8010108@ipfw.ru> <CAAcX-AEt_i8RUfmMy6WLnER0X=uLk5A1=oj911k-nyMJEghRLw@mail.gmail.com> <529259DE.2040701@FreeBSD.org> <20131125152238.S78756@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoth Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org>: > On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 15:30 +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:56:14 +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if "so don't do that" is really sufficient to deal with > > this? If it's not recognised as a valid address, shouldn't it fail to > > add anything, with a complaint? I don't see how a string containing > > dots can be seen as a valid unsigned integer? > > It's still not clear to me that inet_pton() is doing the right thing. > Per the rfc cited earlier in the thread, it's not supposed to interpret > the digits as octal or hex -- they are specifically declared to be > decimal numbers. There's nothing invalid about "01" as a decimal > number. The fact that many of us have a C-programming background and > tend to think of leading-zero as implying octal doesn't change that. OTOH having inet_pton and inet_aton treat 10.0.0.010 as different addresses would be rather confusing. Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131125154110.GA32738>