For those who want to try it at home:

ping 33333333
ping 55555555

I am sorry, two random Internet users in Korea and Germany, your IP addresses are simply special.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      it’s so simple!

      
      ping -c 4 $(mysql -u frodo -p keepyoursecrets -D /home/pingtargets.db -se "SELECT ip FROM servers ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1;")
      
  • 👍Maximum Derek👍
    link
    fedilink
    English
    114 days ago

    55555555

    All addresses that that start in 555 were left open by the internet protocol developers just for movies and TV shows.

    • Chris
      link
      fedilink
      24 days ago

      I don’t get it, the first octet (?) max is 256.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        174 days ago

        Yes, but you can write it in different ways. If the numeric string contains a dot, left of it must be between 0 and 255, and is put in the highest byte of the address. If the rest also contains a dot, repeat, but put it into the second highest byte.

        BUT: if the string does not contain a dot, the number is put into the remaining bytes.

        So 123.256 is a valid address. The 123 goes into the top byte, the 256 goes into the remaining three bytes, so the address would be 123.0.1.0.

        Most common example is 127.1, which is short for 127.0.0.1 - the localhost address.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        44 days ago

        255

        Small correction, but an important one: 0 is a number too.

        In terms of IP masking and broadcast addresses, the max is 255.255.255.255

        • Chris
          link
          fedilink
          24 days ago

          Oof of course. 256 entries from 0 - 255.

          It’s been a long long time since my ccent

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64 days ago

    Obligatory: Fuck Drake.

    There are dozens of meme templates like this that you could have used instead

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        34 days ago

        interesting . . In my head, I think of ip addresses like just decimal values or integers separated by periods, but clearly a decimal value isn’t processed as such by a computer. To think that IP addresses are simply strings is pretty interesting to my amateur mind, because for all my life I thought of them as technical computer jargon that isn’t the same as what I used to think strings were: words!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          34 days ago

          I don’t want to go so far as to tell you how to think, but as long as we are talking about how to visualize IP addresses, you may want to check out subnets and subnet masking.

          The notation of IP addresses starts to make sense when you think about the early days of TCP/IP when all IP addresses were public and NAT’ing wasn’t really required yet. Basically, there needed to be ways for networks to filter traffic by IP blocks that were applicable. (It was [in part] a precursor to collision avoidance, but absolutely not the full story.) We still use addressing and masking today, but it’s more obvious when it’s local. (Like in data centers, where it’s super practical to mask off a block of addresses for a row or rack of servers.)

          To your point, yeah. IP addresses are probably more comparable to the Dewey Decimal System rather than actual numbers and thinking of them as strings is probably easier.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Oh no worries, I am writing a Cisco networking exam in about a month, so I’ve actually studied subnets and addressing a good amount, but I don’t mind the refresher!

            I was just speaking more generally, in terms of programming, where integers and strings are different data types, yet you can store numbers as a string, which I always found interesting.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Or, if you’re me,

    $ ping 16843009                
    PING 16843009 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.           
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=4.06 ms   
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=4.04 ms   
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=4.05 ms   ^C                                                      
    --- 16843009 ping statistics ---                        
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms                                                  
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.044/4.053/4.062/0.007 ms