[HyperHacker]

Just playing with my HOSTS file, and I noticed that if you go to http://0.0.0.0 it returns a blank page immediately instead of delaying a bit like it does with 127.0.0.1. Does this happen to anyone else? If it does, then this would make a better address to use than 127.0.0.1 when blocking domains in the hosts file and such.

[Scubar]

i personally use 0.0.0.0 because i run a webserver and i dont want all the ad blocking attacking it.

[RogueSpear]

This is interesting, but I don't know all of the consequences you're going to run into by doing this. Generally the IP 0.0.0.0 translates to "the internet". Drop to a command line and enter the command route print. You'll notice that 0.0.0.0 is the first destination listed. It's a catchall for any address that doesn't fall into a specific routing table rule.

Personally, I would stick with 127.0.0.1.

[LLXX]

0.0.0.0 is what I use in my hosts file... and it really doesn't take that much effort to s+r all the 127 to 0 so you can try it and see if it's better...

[HyperHacker]

RogueSpear, on Apr 7 2006, 10:08 AM, said:

This is interesting, but I don't know all of the consequences you're going to run into by doing this. Generally the IP 0.0.0.0 translates to "the internet". Drop to a command line and enter the command route print. You'll notice that 0.0.0.0 is the first destination listed. It's a catchall for any address that doesn't fall into a specific routing table rule.

Personally, I would stick with 127.0.0.1.

Hm, could be. Ping and tracert tell me the destination is invalid. Firefox doesn't seem to care, though.