Talk:0.0.0.0

Comments
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)

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

"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)

Ref RFC
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yikes, maybe... I am happy to pursue an alternative if you have one. The Ref RFC template generates a code, but when page numbers and/or quotes are requested the template reverts to an empty, since multiple references to the same RFC have different content. Using option 'rp' instead of 'p' generates a Rp within the around a . — Da n do r iD (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Aisl001007
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9.9.9.9 43.224.39.177 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)