Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rayhaanj 595 days ago
Also 4_294_901_931 is actually just small enough to fit in a u32 whose max value is 4_294_967_295
2 comments

Perhaps hex notation helps to see things better: 0xFFFF00AB. It's actually nearly 64K below the maximum. 0xAB is 171.
Ha, this is exactly right! It's 100% in u32 range and part of the private use reservations so wouldn't appear in the internet table unless such values aren't filtered by the provider and/or it's being used locally.

Originally I went to write your exact comment because it seemed the value in the article should fit at a glance and then I must have done the comparison check backwards because I started pasting the 2^32 value in the rest of my comment concluded it was actually too large when really I had just jumbled things about.

Thanks for setting my mind straight!