Geez, they're not even TRYING

[gonzolawyer]

Lately I've been hooked on Law And Order reruns on TNT. So I'm watching one now and they're running a traceroute to locate a computer, and the IP address of that computer is

392.163.1.104

Thankfully, BBC is running Prime Suspect again, so I get my dose of intelligent crime drama. And my dose of Helen Mirren too.

Comments

[worgl]

Maybe they used an invalid IP address for the same reason that shows use 555 phone numbers?

[gonzolawyer]

But at least 555 is a valid number - it exists in the arabic numeral system. 392 does not exist in IP land.

[worgl]

Both 555 and 392 are valid numbers - they both exist in the arabic numeral system.

392 does not exist in IP land.
555 does not exist in telephone-exchange land.

[gonzolawyer]

Both 555 and 392 are valid numbers - they both exist in the arabic numeral system.

You're not understanding. IP numbers are not decimal. They are converted from hexadecimal to decimal for the non-geeks.

In decimal numbering, the upper limit of a three digit number is 999. In hexadecimal, the upper limit of a two-digit hexadecimal number is FF (255 in decimal).

If you want to draw a parallel to an invalid phone number, a better example would be 1325-50477.

555 is a valid exchange for a phone number; it just isn't used by the phone company.

[perich]

Would you have been less miffed if the IP were 256.163.1.104?

Equally impossible, but for different reasons.

[gonzolawyer]

I would have been equally miffed, because neither 392 nor 256 are equally incapable of existing as a field in an IP address.

[scottsch]

How about 555.163.1.104?

[gonzolawyer]

Now that's the kind of humor I appreciate.

[just_jonathan]

You can't expect much. They probably blew their budget on extra instances of the "doink-doink" and didn't have enough left over to bribe a 15 year old skr1pt kiddi3 with mountain dew and a pack of newports to be the technical adviser.

Hell...I'd do it for mountain dew and smokes. (especially if it was code red)