Jump to content

Talk:0.0.0.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Verbatim

Zero of 4294967295.

Note that much of this article is copied verbatim from this ServerFault answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.159.226 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verion 1300300460 has addressed this and also verify that serverfault.com discussion source. No more verbatim content from that source remains. Anonymous Agent (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero of 4294967295. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.30.29 (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verion 1300300460 has addressed this and also verify that serverfault.com discussion source. Anonymous Agent (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref RFC

@Dandorid: Please check your recent edit. There is a reference at the end of "A way to explicitly specify that the target is unavailable." For me, clicking the ref (currently [7]) does nothing. It should jump to and highlight ref 7. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandorid and Johnuniq: The same problem occurs with references [4], [5] and [6] at Template:Ref RFC/doc, and, after some experimentation, references [1] and [2] at User:John of Reading/X3 (permalink), so this is a general problem, not a problem with the edit made to this article. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detail. I assumed there was something off. Dandorid is also the creator of {{Ref RFC}} so they are the right person to debug. I hoped to avoid looking at it myself but had a quick peek and see that it requires a hand-built database of every used RFC, for example Template:Ref RFC/db/46. Yikes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, maybe... I am happy to pursue an alternative if you have one. The {{Ref RFC}} template generates a <ref name='rfc9999'>...</ref> code, but when page numbers and/or quotes are requested the template reverts to an empty <ref>...</ref>, since multiple references to the same RFC have different content. Using option 'rp' instead of 'p' generates a {{Rp}} within the <ref>, but quotes cannot be taken out that way.
For now the issue is fixed by manually specifying <ref></ref> around a {{Ref RFC|ref=no}}. — DandoriD (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to remove 0.0.0.0#Other_non-standard_uses

Version 1300286389 stated "0.0.0.0 is a non-routable meta-address used to designate an invalid, unknown or non applicable target. Since this is non-standard usage, it might be contradict to RFC 1122." Since stating this as non-standard usage 0.0.0.0 and contradict to 1122, this is not correct and is remove. Here is why:

  • 0.0.0.0 is a non-routable address as RFC 1122 defines it as the host source address and forbid it from being the destination address. So nothing is contradict to RFC 1122 here.
  • "0.0.0.0 is used to designate an unknown or non applicable target": 0.0.0.0 is designated to an unknown or non applicable target during DHCP or BOOTP initialization process. So nothing is contradict to RFC 1122 here.
  • "0.0.0.0 is used to designate an invalid target": This refer to case like DNS-based ad-blocking. For example in /etc/hosts file, when adding:

0.0.0.0 badsite.com

This maps badsite.com to an invalid/unusable host (0.0.0.0). Since 0.0.0.0 is non-routable, attempts to connect to badsite.com will fail. Since this operation follows the RFC 1122, there is nothing contradict here.

Anonymous Agent (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verion 1300300460 has removed this. Anonymous Agent (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Routing table with 0.0.0.0 as gateway

Version 1300286389 stated "In routing tables, 0.0.0.0 can also appear in the gateway column. This indicates that the gateway to reach the corresponding destination subnet is unspecified." The phrasing "unspecified" is misleading.

The 0.0.0.0 in gateway column means that the destination is directly reachable on a local interface and no next-hop router (gateway) is needed. Saying the gateway is "unspecified" might imply that it's not yet known, while in routing tables, 0.0.0.0 in the gateway column is deliberate and specific.

That statement should be changed to "In routing tables, can also appear in the gateway column. This indicates that the destination is directly reachable on a local interface and no next-hop router (gateway) is needed." Anonymous Agent (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verion 1300300460 has updated those to the Routing section. Anonymous Agent (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:0.0.0.0&oldid=1301164067"