>If I run this command:
>
>route -p ADD 172.020.109.012  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254  METRIC
>3

>It responds with:
>
>The route addition failed: The specified mask parameter is invalid.
>(Destination
> & Mask) != Destination.
>
>But, if I run this command:
>
>route -p ADD 172.20.109.12  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254  METRIC 3
>
>it works.....
>
>Is this a bug or don't I understand?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Fred

>In article <uvvMipNkHHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, "Fred Marshall"
><fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:
>>If I run this command:
>>
>>route -p ADD 172.020.109.012  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254  METRIC
>>3
>
>>It responds with:
>>
>>The route addition failed: The specified mask parameter is invalid.
>>(Destination
>> & Mask) != Destination.
>>
>>But, if I run this command:
>>
>>route -p ADD 172.20.109.12  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254  METRIC 3
>>
>>it works.....
>>
>>Is this a bug or don't I understand?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Fred
>
>The first command has "020" in the second octet of the destination
>field.  The second command has "20".
>
>A number starting with a zero is interpreted as octal, so "020" and
>"20" are different numbers:
>
>   020 = 20 octal = 16 decimal
>     20 = 20 decimal

"Steve Winograd [MVP]" <bcma***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:fa2443thges90nt8k0rajtkhnrab1p3ncs@4ax.com...
> In article <jn1443h2i77hvu1387effaf8tkmc37q***@4ax.com>, "Steve
> Winograd [MVP]" <bcma***@mvps.org> wrote:
>>In article <uvvMipNkHHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, "Fred Marshall"
>><fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:
>>>If I run this command:
>>>
>>>route -p ADD 172.020.109.012  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254
>>>METRIC
>>>3
>>
>>>It responds with:
>>>
>>>The route addition failed: The specified mask parameter is invalid.
>>>(Destination
>>> & Mask) != Destination.
>>>
>>>But, if I run this command:
>>>
>>>route -p ADD 172.20.109.12  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254  METRIC
>>>3
>>>
>>>it works.....
>>>
>>>Is this a bug or don't I understand?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Fred
>>
>>The first command has "020" in the second octet of the destination
>>field.  The second command has "20".
>>
>>A number starting with a zero is interpreted as octal, so "020" and
>>"20" are different numbers:
>>
>>   020 = 20 octal = 16 decimal
>>     20 = 20 decimal
>
> On closer inspection, I see that I had the right idea in my first
> reply, but I got the details wrong.  "020" and "20" are both OK in the
> second octet.  It's the "012" vs. "12" in the fourth octet that causes
> the problem:
>
>   012 = 12 octal = 10 decimal  = 00001010 binary
>
> In the fourth octet, the logical AND of the subnet mask and the
> destination address is:
>
>   11111100 AND 00001010 = 00001000
>
> The "route add" command correctly reports that the value of the AND
> (00001000) doesn't equal the destination (00001010).  In other words,
> the route is invalid because it can't match any IP addresses.
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

>>>>If I run this command:
>>>>
>>>>route -p ADD 172.020.109.012  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254
>>>>METRIC
>>>>3
>>>
>>>>It responds with:
>>>>
>>>>The route addition failed: The specified mask parameter is invalid.
>>>>(Destination
>>>> & Mask) != Destination.
>>>>
>>>>But, if I run this command:
>>>>
>>>>route -p ADD 172.20.109.12  MASK 255.255.255.252  192.168.109.254  METRIC
>>>>3
>>>>
>>>>it works.....
>>>>
>>>>Is this a bug or don't I understand?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Fred
>>>
>>>The first command has "020" in the second octet of the destination
>>>field.  The second command has "20".
>>>
>>>A number starting with a zero is interpreted as octal, so "020" and
>>>"20" are different numbers:
>>>
>>>   020 = 20 octal = 16 decimal
>>>     20 = 20 decimal
>>
>> On closer inspection, I see that I had the right idea in my first
>> reply, but I got the details wrong.  "020" and "20" are both OK in the
>> second octet.  It's the "012" vs. "12" in the fourth octet that causes
>> the problem:
>>
>>   012 = 12 octal = 10 decimal  = 00001010 binary
>>
>> In the fourth octet, the logical AND of the subnet mask and the
>> destination address is:
>>
>>   11111100 AND 00001010 = 00001000
>>
>> The "route add" command correctly reports that the value of the AND
>> (00001000) doesn't equal the destination (00001010).  In other words,
>> the route is invalid because it can't match any IP addresses.
>
>Ah!  Octal. Thanks Steve!