Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulpauper | Hacker News Reader

this also works..amazing

goes to cloudflare. how did they register this?

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.

I wonder what will happen when browsers start supporting Handshake (HNS) top-level domains such as “.1”

I 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

[2] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#host-parsing

That's a bare ip. The ip is getting extended out to be a full 32 bit ipv4 address. It's not getting DNS resolved.

It's just the IP address 1.0.0.1 in the old "class A notation". (Network address dot host address).

1 is the network address. .0.0.1 is the host address. 1.256 would be 1.0.1.0, etc.

Just use http://16777217 instead.

The same way 127.1 goes to the localhost, and 10.1 to 10.0.0.1.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com