3 ms·
There is an old (IIRC non-standard) convention from the classful IP times which allows you to write not only X.Y.Z.W but also X.Y.ZW, X.YZW, and occasionally ev
by mananaysiempre 4y ago
There is an old (IIRC non-standard) convention from the classful IP times which allows you to write not only X.Y.Z.W but also X.Y.ZW, X.YZW, and occasionally even XYZW with ZW = 256 × Z + W (decimal) etc., all referring to the same host. So 1.0.1, 1.1, and 16777217 are all funny ways to write 1.0.0.1, which is indeed an alternative address for Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1—also written 1.1.257, 1.65793, and 16843009.
- miguelrochefort 4y agoI wonder what will happen when browsers start supporting Handshake (HNS) top-level domains such as “.1”
- mananaysiempre 4y agoI neither expect this to happen nor think this is a matter for browsers (rather than system name resolvers), but in any case[1] top-level domain names [must] not be all-numeric so these are simply bad DNS. Browsers, even though they deliberately disregard RFCs on matters of URI syntax, concur on this particular point[2] If asciiDomain [split on periods] ends in a [C-style decimal, octal, or hexadecimal] number, then return the result of IPv4 parsing asciiDomain. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3696#section-2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3696#section-2 [2] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#host-parsing https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#host-parsing