The IP address you supply the ping command with can have a leading zero or multiple leading zeros and they will be ignored by the ping command.
This is an example.
jason@jason-desktop:~$ ping 192.168.00001.00002 PING 192.168.00001.00002 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.012 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.018 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.019 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.018 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.018 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.017 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.018 ms |
This is a very cool but pointless ping trick.
Even this does not affect it at all.
jason@jason-desktop:~$ ping 192.168.000000001.000000002 PING 192.168.000000001.000000002 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.013 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.024 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.021 ms ^C --- 192.168.000000001.000000002 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2054ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.013/0.019/0.024/0.005 ms |
This trick also works on Windows with CMD.
C:\Users\jason>ping 192.168.00001.00002 Pinging 192.168.1.2 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128 Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128 Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128 Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128 Ping statistics for 192.168.1.2: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms |
This is interesting, but a useless trick. Creating an IP address with zeros in the wrong places could be interpreted as the wrong number when you try and ping it. A good explanation here: https://superuser.com/questions/857603/are-ip-addresses-with-and-without-leading-zeroes-the-same.
This is an example in Windows 8.1 of the ping command interpreting 192.168.1.010 as 192.168.1.8.
C:\Users\jason>ping 192.168.1.010 Pinging 192.168.1.8 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.1.2: Destination host unreachable. Ping statistics for 192.168.1.8: Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 1, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Control-C ^C |
This is further proof that having a leading zero in an IP address is a very bad idea.
Yet another example.
C:\Users\jason>ping 192.168.1.020 Pinging 192.168.1.16 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.1.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.2: Destination host unreachable. Ping statistics for 192.168.1.16: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), |
;)