Regular expression to match DNS hostname or IP Address?

后端 未结 21 2459
长发绾君心
长发绾君心 2020-11-21 07:25

Does anyone have a regular expression handy that will match any legal DNS hostname or IP address?

It\'s easy to write one that works 95% of the time, but I\'m hoping

相关标签:
21条回答
  • 2020-11-21 07:43

    I think this is the best Ip validation regex. please check it once!!!

    ^(([01]?[0-9]?[0-9]|2([0-4][0-9]|5[0-5]))\.){3}([01]?[0-9]?[0-9]|2([0-4][0-9]|5[0-5]))$
    
    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-21 07:43
    AddressRegex = "^(ftp|http|https):\/\/([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}:[0-9]{1,5})$";
    
    HostnameRegex =  /^(ftp|http|https):\/\/([a-z0-9]+\.)?[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*((\.[a-z]{2,6})|(\.[a-z]{2,6})(\.[a-z]{2,6}))$/i
    

    this re are used only for for this type validation

    work only if http://www.kk.com http://www.kk.co.in

    not works for

    http://www.kk.com/ http://www.kk.co.in.kk

    http://www.kk.com/dfas http://www.kk.co.in/

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-21 07:45

    The hostname regex of smink does not observe the limitation on the length of individual labels within a hostname. Each label within a valid hostname may be no more than 63 octets long.

    ValidHostnameRegex="^([a-zA-Z0-9]|[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9\-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])\
    (\.([a-zA-Z0-9]|[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9\-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9]))*$"

    Note that the backslash at the end of the first line (above) is Unix shell syntax for splitting the long line. It's not a part of the regular expression itself.

    Here's just the regular expression alone on a single line:

    ^([a-zA-Z0-9]|[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9\-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])(\.([a-zA-Z0-9]|[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9\-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9]))*$

    You should also check separately that the total length of the hostname must not exceed 255 characters. For more information, please consult RFC-952 and RFC-1123.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-21 07:46

    Regarding IP addresses, it appears that there is some debate on whether to include leading zeros. It was once the common practice and is generally accepted, so I would argue that they should be flagged as valid regardless of the current preference. There is also some ambiguity over whether text before and after the string should be validated and, again, I think it should. 1.2.3.4 is a valid IP but 1.2.3.4.5 is not and neither the 1.2.3.4 portion nor the 2.3.4.5 portion should result in a match. Some of the concerns can be handled with this expression:

    grep -E '(^|[^[:alnum:]+)(([0-1]?[0-9]{1,2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\.){3}([0-1]?[0-9]{1,2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])([^[:alnum:]]|$)' 
    

    The unfortunate part here is the fact that the regex portion that validates an octet is repeated as is true in many offered solutions. Although this is better than for instances of the pattern, the repetition can be eliminated entirely if subroutines are supported in the regex being used. The next example enables those functions with the -P switch of grep and also takes advantage of lookahead and lookbehind functionality. (The function name I selected is 'o' for octet. I could have used 'octet' as the name but wanted to be terse.)

    grep -P '(?<![\d\w\.])(?<o>([0-1]?[0-9]{1,2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]))(\.\g<o>){3}(?![\d\w\.])'
    

    The handling of the dot might actually create a false negatives if IP addresses are in a file with text in the form of sentences since the a period could follow without it being part of the dotted notation. A variant of the above would fix that:

    grep -P '(?<![\d\w\.])(?<x>([0-1]?[0-9]{1,2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]))(\.\g<x>){3}(?!([\d\w]|\.\d))'
    
    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-21 07:48

    To match a valid IP address use the following regex:

    (25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)(\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)){3}
    

    instead of:

    ([01]?[0-9][0-9]?|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])(\.([01]?[0-9][0-9]?|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])){3}
    

    Explanation

    Many regex engine match the first possibility in the OR sequence. For instance, try the following regex:

    10.48.0.200
    

    Test

    Test the difference between good vs bad

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-21 07:48

    how about this?

    ([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}
    
    0 讨论(0)
提交回复
热议问题