| excluding an ip from count [message #183259] |
Tue, 15 October 2013 23:38  |
Mr Oldies
Messages: 241
Registered: October 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
included in the hit counter.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183260 is a reply to message #183259] |
Wed, 16 October 2013 00:17  |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
richard wrote:
> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
> included in the hit counter.
Write an if/else clause.
Of course, you will have to rewrite it every time you get a new IP address.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183263 is a reply to message #183259] |
Wed, 16 October 2013 16:44 |
Tobiah
Messages: 30
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
> included in the hit counter.
>
Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
'REMOTE_ADDR'
The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
so,
if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
increment_count();
}
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183264 is a reply to message #183263] |
Wed, 16 October 2013 19:38 |
Mr Oldies
Messages: 241
Registered: October 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:44:51 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
>> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
>> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
>> included in the hit counter.
>>
>
> Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
>
> 'REMOTE_ADDR'
> The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
>
> so,
>
> if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
> increment_count();
> }
That could work. thanks.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183265 is a reply to message #183264] |
Wed, 16 October 2013 22:40 |
Scott Johnson
Messages: 196
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/16/2013 12:38 PM, richard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:44:51 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
>>> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
>>> included in the hit counter.
>>>
>>
>> Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
>>
>> 'REMOTE_ADDR'
>> The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
>>
>> so,
>>
>> if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
>> increment_count();
>> }
>
> That could work. thanks.
>
Unless you have a shared IP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183273 is a reply to message #183265] |
Fri, 18 October 2013 18:29 |
Tobiah
Messages: 30
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 10/16/2013 03:40 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 12:38 PM, richard wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:44:51 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>>> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
>>>> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
>>>> included in the hit counter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
>>>
>>> 'REMOTE_ADDR'
>>> The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
>>>
>>> so,
>>>
>>> if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
>>> increment_count();
>>> }
>>
>> That could work. thanks.
>>
>
> Unless you have a shared IP.
Yeah, but in this case he wants to differentiate between
himself and the cloud users, so it's probably
ok, although he'd have to glean his IP from the PHP server rather than
checking the setting on his local box.
Tobiah
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183277 is a reply to message #183273] |
Fri, 18 October 2013 23:14 |
Scott Johnson
Messages: 196
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/18/2013 11:29 AM, Tobiah wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 03:40 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
>> On 10/16/2013 12:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:44:51 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>>> > What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
>>>> > I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
>>>> > included in the hit counter.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
>>>>
>>>> 'REMOTE_ADDR'
>>>> The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
>>>>
>>>> so,
>>>>
>>>> if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
>>>> increment_count();
>>>> }
>>>
>>> That could work. thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you have a shared IP.
>
> Yeah, but in this case he wants to differentiate between
> himself and the cloud users, so it's probably
> ok, although he'd have to glean his IP from the PHP server rather than
> checking the setting on his local box.
>
> Tobiah
Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
Scotty
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183279 is a reply to message #183277] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 15:06 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
<noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183281 is a reply to message #183279] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 15:34 |
Lew Pitcher
Messages: 60
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Saturday 19 October 2013 11:06, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
<evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>
> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
True. However, someone on, say AT&T, may get an IP address that had been
previously assigned to /someone else/ on AT&T. Many ISP's use "dynamic" IP
address assignments, and force their clients to change addresses on
occasion.
Also, many clients use IPv4 NAT to connect multiple devices to the internet
through one "public" IP address. Mom's laptop and Dad's desktop would,
while having different private IP addresses within their home LAN, have the
same IP address to Richard's website.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183282 is a reply to message #183279] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 17:44 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/10/13 16:06, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>
> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
>
I dont think he meant another ISP, other people on AN ISP that uses NAT
- this is typical of some 3G stuff.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183285 is a reply to message #183279] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 21:50 |
Richard Yates
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:06:52 -0700, Evan Platt
<evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>
> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
For instance, on a site I mange all the web traffic from folks
working at the local hospital has the same IP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183286 is a reply to message #183277] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 21:52 |
Richard Yates
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
<noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 11:29 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>> On 10/16/2013 03:40 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2013 12:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:44:51 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>>> >> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
>>>> >> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
>>>> >> included in the hit counter.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
>>>> >
>>>> > 'REMOTE_ADDR'
>>>> > The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
>>>> >
>>>> > so,
>>>> >
>>>> > if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
>>>> > increment_count();
>>>> > }
>>>>
>>>> That could work. thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless you have a shared IP.
>>
>> Yeah, but in this case he wants to differentiate between
>> himself and the cloud users, so it's probably
>> ok, although he'd have to glean his IP from the PHP server rather than
>> checking the setting on his local box.
>>
>> Tobiah
>
> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>
> Scotty
The "probably" wasn't about security, it was about being able to
exclude his own IP from his hits.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183288 is a reply to message #183285] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 22:37 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/10/13 22:50, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:06:52 -0700, Evan Platt
> <evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
>> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>>
>> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
>> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
>> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
>
> For instance, on a site I mange all the web traffic from folks
> working at the local hospital has the same IP.
>
a lot I got was from 'british telecom corporate proxy server' busy chap
he was.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183290 is a reply to message #183281] |
Sat, 19 October 2013 23:52 |
Mr Oldies
Messages: 241
Registered: October 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:34:36 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Saturday 19 October 2013 11:06, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
> <evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
>> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>>
>> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
>> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
>> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
>
> True. However, someone on, say AT&T, may get an IP address that had been
> previously assigned to /someone else/ on AT&T. Many ISP's use "dynamic" IP
> address assignments, and force their clients to change addresses on
> occasion.
>
> Also, many clients use IPv4 NAT to connect multiple devices to the internet
> through one "public" IP address. Mom's laptop and Dad's desktop would,
> while having different private IP addresses within their home LAN, have the
> same IP address to Richard's website.
Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
Evan fails to understand it.
He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
Although there are websites out there that will show you just how many
websites reside on any given IP.
An IP is assigned to a server. Not each and every PC or machine.
Software within the routing systems keeps track of who gets what and when.
And this comes from a guy who claims to be an IT expert in routers?
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183292 is a reply to message #183290] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 02:31 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/19/2013 7:52 PM, richard wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:34:36 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 19 October 2013 11:06, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
>> <evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
>>> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>>>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>>>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>>>
>>> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
>>> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
>>> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
>>
>> True. However, someone on, say AT&T, may get an IP address that had been
>> previously assigned to /someone else/ on AT&T. Many ISP's use "dynamic" IP
>> address assignments, and force their clients to change addresses on
>> occasion.
>>
>> Also, many clients use IPv4 NAT to connect multiple devices to the internet
>> through one "public" IP address. Mom's laptop and Dad's desktop would,
>> while having different private IP addresses within their home LAN, have the
>> same IP address to Richard's website.
>
> Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
> Evan fails to understand it.
> He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
> Although there are websites out there that will show you just how many
> websites reside on any given IP.
>
> An IP is assigned to a server. Not each and every PC or machine.
> Software within the routing systems keeps track of who gets what and when.
>
>
> And this comes from a guy who claims to be an IT expert in routers?
>
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion...
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183295 is a reply to message #183290] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 05:24 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
wrote:
> Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
*sigh* bullis, you really need to STFU. You know absolutely nothing
about computers.
> Evan fails to understand it.
No, you're confusing that comment with yourself.
> He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
No. One IP - One DEVICE. At a TIME.
If both you and I are on the same ISP, we cannot - at the same time,
have the same IP. If, however, I get the IP 1.2.3.4, and then I
disconnect, depending on the lease time, you can connect an hour later
and then also get 1.2.3.4 - but not at the same time as me.
And, if you're sitting in your motel room with your one laptop for
you, and two laptops for each of your blow up sheep, they will all
have different IP's. Your router may have the IP 1.2.3.4, but your
laptop will have a IP of 192.168.1.5, and one of your blow up sheep
will have the IP 192.168.1.7 . So yes - in a sense, one IP equals one
person - at a time
> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
No, again, that's YOU who fail to understand that. You asked "how then
can multiple websites run on the same IP"?
I run and manage a number of web servers, quite a few on the same IP.
I had to explain to you how it was possible.
I explained it to you over and over, your feeble brain couldn't grasp
the concept.
> Although there are websites out there that will show you just how many
> websites reside on any given IP.
>
> An IP is assigned to a server. Not each and every PC or machine.
Huh?
> Software within the routing systems keeps track of who gets what and when.
"Software within the routing system?"
> And this comes from a guy who claims to be an IT expert in routers?
Uhh IT is my full time job, bullis.
You've proven to know nothing about anything computer related, so shut
up and quit while you're ... oh hell who am I kidding, you're not
ahead, you're WAY behind.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183298 is a reply to message #183290] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 06:02 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
wrote:
> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
I've got a challenge for you bullis.
Explain how multiple websites share the same IP.
Explain what hardware or software does what, and how.
<Crickets>
You don't know, do you? Even though I explained it to you a dozen
times.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183306 is a reply to message #183295] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 13:13 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/20/2013 1:24 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
>
> *sigh* bullis, you really need to STFU. You know absolutely nothing
> about computers.
>
>> Evan fails to understand it.
>
> No, you're confusing that comment with yourself.
>
>> He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
>
> No. One IP - One DEVICE. At a TIME.
>
> If both you and I are on the same ISP, we cannot - at the same time,
> have the same IP. If, however, I get the IP 1.2.3.4, and then I
> disconnect, depending on the lease time, you can connect an hour later
> and then also get 1.2.3.4 - but not at the same time as me.
>
Incorrect. Ever computer at my office has the same public IP all the time.
> And, if you're sitting in your motel room with your one laptop for
> you, and two laptops for each of your blow up sheep, they will all
> have different IP's. Your router may have the IP 1.2.3.4, but your
> laptop will have a IP of 192.168.1.5, and one of your blow up sheep
> will have the IP 192.168.1.7 . So yes - in a sense, one IP equals one
> person - at a time
>
Again, incorrect. Chances are every computer in the motel will have the
same public IP - at the same time.
<snip>
Look up NAT and how it works.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183307 is a reply to message #183306] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 13:52 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:13:59 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/20/2013 1:24 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
>>
>> *sigh* bullis, you really need to STFU. You know absolutely nothing
>> about computers.
>>
>>> Evan fails to understand it.
>>
>> No, you're confusing that comment with yourself.
>>
>>> He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
>>
>> No. One IP - One DEVICE. At a TIME.
>>
>> If both you and I are on the same ISP, we cannot - at the same time,
>> have the same IP. If, however, I get the IP 1.2.3.4, and then I
>> disconnect, depending on the lease time, you can connect an hour later
>> and then also get 1.2.3.4 - but not at the same time as me.
>>
>
> Incorrect. Ever computer at my office has the same public IP all the time.
>
>> And, if you're sitting in your motel room with your one laptop for
>> you, and two laptops for each of your blow up sheep, they will all
>> have different IP's. Your router may have the IP 1.2.3.4, but your
>> laptop will have a IP of 192.168.1.5, and one of your blow up sheep
>> will have the IP 192.168.1.7 . So yes - in a sense, one IP equals one
>> person - at a time
>>
>
> Again, incorrect. Chances are every computer in the motel will have the
> same public IP - at the same time.
>
> <snip>
>
> Look up NAT and how it works.
Umm.. I just defined NAT, dumbass. No, each computer will NOT have the
same public IP.
Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
each list the public IP.
No? Really? They show the 192.168.x.x (or other NAT IP), just as I
described.
You're as dumb as bullis.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183308 is a reply to message #183290] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 14:08 |
Lew Pitcher
Messages: 60
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Saturday 19 October 2013 19:52, in comp.lang.php, "richard"
<noreply(at)example(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:34:36 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 19 October 2013 11:06, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
>> <evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
>>> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>>>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>>>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'shared ip'.
>>>
>>> And "Others whose ISP use the same IP" doesn't make sense - an ISP
>>> owns the IPs. So someone on say AT&T would never get the same IP as
>>> someone on say Verizon or Comcast.
>>
>> True. However, someone on, say AT&T, may get an IP address that had been
>> previously assigned to /someone else/ on AT&T. Many ISP's use "dynamic"
>> IP address assignments, and force their clients to change addresses on
>> occasion.
>>
>> Also, many clients use IPv4 NAT to connect multiple devices to the
>> internet through one "public" IP address. Mom's laptop and Dad's desktop
>> would, while having different private IP addresses within their home LAN,
>> have the same IP address to Richard's website.
>
> Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
> Evan fails to understand it.
> He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
> Although there are websites out there that will show you just how many
> websites reside on any given IP.
>
> An IP is assigned to a server. Not each and every PC or machine.
Sorry, but not really.
Each "host" on a TCP/IP network has one (or more, usually more) IP address.
It is true that a "server" may have an IP address (usually, it has more
than one IP address). However, it is also true that /each and every PC or
machine/ on a TCP/IP network (including home LANs) has it's own, individual
and unique, IP address (or two, or more).
> Software within the routing systems keeps track of who gets what and when.
And the router routes by way of IP addresses.
> And this comes from a guy who claims to be an IT expert in routers?
Sorry, but I'd trust his expertise over yours in this matter.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183310 is a reply to message #183298] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 14:12 |
Lew Pitcher
Messages: 60
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Sunday 20 October 2013 02:02, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
<evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
>
> I've got a challenge for you bullis.
>
> Explain how multiple websites share the same IP.
The Domain Name system translates names (such as justlinux.ca or
pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca) into IP addresses. Two different names
can "resolve" into the same IP address.
HTTP requires that each client pass, to the web server at a particular IP
address, the fully-qualified domain name of the website address it is
looking for. The web server at the target IP address looks at this fqdn,
and selects /which/ website it will serve up. So, even though justlinux.ca
and pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca share the same IP address, HTTP requests to
http://justlinux.ca and http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca will retrieve
completely different web pages.
> Explain what hardware or software does what, and how.
Done
> <Crickets>
> You don't know, do you? Even though I explained it to you a dozen
> times.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183311 is a reply to message #183307] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 14:32 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/20/2013 9:52 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:13:59 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2013 1:24 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Several years ago I tried explaining the concept of shared IP's.
>>>
>>> *sigh* bullis, you really need to STFU. You know absolutely nothing
>>> about computers.
>>>
>>>> Evan fails to understand it.
>>>
>>> No, you're confusing that comment with yourself.
>>>
>>>> He is under the assumption, one IP equsls one person.
>>>
>>> No. One IP - One DEVICE. At a TIME.
>>>
>>> If both you and I are on the same ISP, we cannot - at the same time,
>>> have the same IP. If, however, I get the IP 1.2.3.4, and then I
>>> disconnect, depending on the lease time, you can connect an hour later
>>> and then also get 1.2.3.4 - but not at the same time as me.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. Ever computer at my office has the same public IP all the time.
>>
>>> And, if you're sitting in your motel room with your one laptop for
>>> you, and two laptops for each of your blow up sheep, they will all
>>> have different IP's. Your router may have the IP 1.2.3.4, but your
>>> laptop will have a IP of 192.168.1.5, and one of your blow up sheep
>>> will have the IP 192.168.1.7 . So yes - in a sense, one IP equals one
>>> person - at a time
>>>
>>
>> Again, incorrect. Chances are every computer in the motel will have the
>> same public IP - at the same time.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Look up NAT and how it works.
>
> Umm.. I just defined NAT, dumbass. No, each computer will NOT have the
> same public IP.
>
You don't know how NAT works, that's for sure.
> Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
> each list the public IP.
That is not the public IP. That is the private IP on my LAN. But you
obviously don't understand the difference.
Go to Google and enter "what's my ip". They all show the same public
IP. And that is the IP which shows up in $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'].
>
> No? Really? They show the 192.168.x.x (or other NAT IP), just as I
> described.
>
> You're as dumb as bullis.
>
Yes, you've just proven you are.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183314 is a reply to message #183259] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 14:56 |
Arno Welzel
Messages: 317
Registered: October 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
richard, 2013-10-16 01:38:
> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
> included in the hit counter.
Is your IP is always the same?
Otherwise I would recommend using an "exclude me" cookie which you can
set on your own using a little helper script and which you check before
you count.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183321 is a reply to message #183311] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 16:41 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
> You don't know how NAT works, that's for sure.
Yes, actually, I do.
>> Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
>> each list the public IP.
>
> That is not the public IP. That is the private IP on my LAN. But you
> obviously don't understand the difference.
Exactly my point. Each of your computers does NOT have the same public
IP.
> Go to Google and enter "what's my ip". They all show the same public
> IP. And that is the IP which shows up in $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'].
As it should. Because your traffic is going from your router.
>> No? Really? They show the 192.168.x.x (or other NAT IP), just as I
>> described.
>>
>> You're as dumb as bullis.
>>
>
> Yes, you've just proven you are.
Ok, you're obviously a troll, and I should have done this a long time
ago..
*plonk*
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183322 is a reply to message #183310] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 16:43 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Lew Pitcher
<lew(dot)pitcher(at)digitalfreehold(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Sunday 20 October 2013 02:02, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
> <evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
>>
>> I've got a challenge for you bullis.
>>
>> Explain how multiple websites share the same IP.
>
> The Domain Name system translates names (such as justlinux.ca or
> pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca) into IP addresses. Two different names
> can "resolve" into the same IP address.
That was a chellenge for bullis. I'm quite confident most everyone
else here understands how it works, but bullis doesn't. He spouts off
at how smart he is yet shows his stupidity every time he opens his
mouth.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183329 is a reply to message #183310] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 18:07 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> HTTP requires that each client pass, to the web server at a particular
> IP address, the fully-qualified domain name of the website address it is
> looking for.
There is probably a client out there somewhere that is only HTTP 0.9
simple request capable, but I imagine it's being kept in a lab somewhere
for research purposes and shouldn't be expected to be seen in the wild.
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183331 is a reply to message #183307] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 18:14 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:52:17 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> No? Really? They show the 192.168.x.x (or other NAT IP), just as I
> described.
192.168.x.x is not a public ip. It's a private IP in a reserved range for
NAT.
The term "public ip" usually refers to the one seen by users outside of
any natted networks, and for a natted network is generally the ip
presented to the rest of the world by the router that interfaces the
private network with "the internet".
For example, my device ips are in the 192.168.x.x range, but my public ip
is a constant 62.49.88.169 (My ISP provides me with a static ip
asignment).
I suspect there's some terminology confusion going on here?
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183332 is a reply to message #183321] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 18:23 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:41:43 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> You don't know how NAT works, that's for sure.
>
> Yes, actually, I do.
>
>>> Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
>>> each list the public IP.
>> That is not the public IP. That is the private IP on my LAN. But you
>> obviously don't understand the difference.
> Exactly my point. Each of your computers does NOT have the same public
> IP.
Evan, you seem to be conflating the term "public ip" and "private ip".
The definitions as I understand them:
Public IP: The IP you present to the rest of the internet, for example,
the ip address that an edge router at isp-x would see a packet as
originating from when it arrives from your non isp-x connected origin
system.
Private IP: An internal IP address used on a network separated from the
public internet by routers performing network address translation, such
that any computer external to that network sees all traffic from
computers within that network as originating from a single public ip
address, or possibly a small set of public ip addresses.
So a 192.168.x.x address would be a private IP address, not a public ip
address. When bullis is in his hotel room in vegas with his blow up sheep
and they're all using the hotel's wifi, they would normally all have
private ips on the hotels private network, which through NAT would give
them all the same public ip which I would see in my logs if they were
accessing pictures of lolcats on my apache web server in the UK.
(Note - I don't actually have a collection of lolcat pics on my server!)
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183333 is a reply to message #183286] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 18:37 |
Scott Johnson
Messages: 196
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/19/2013 2:52 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
> <noonehome(at)chalupasworld(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2013 11:29 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2013 03:40 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2013 12:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:44:51 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 10/15/2013 04:38 PM, richard wrote:
>>>> >>> What are some ways of not countng hits from one IP?
>>>> >>> I now have a counter for my songs and want to exclude my IP from being
>>>> >>> included in the hit counter.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Check out the values in the $_SERVER variable in the manual:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 'REMOTE_ADDR'
>>>> >> The IP address from which the user is viewing the current page.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> so,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> if($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'] != $my_ip_address){
>>>> >> increment_count();
>>>> >> }
>>>> >
>>>> > That could work. thanks.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Unless you have a shared IP.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but in this case he wants to differentiate between
>>> himself and the cloud users, so it's probably
>>> ok, although he'd have to glean his IP from the PHP server rather than
>>> checking the setting on his local box.
>>>
>>> Tobiah
>>
>> Again, if he has a shared IP then he may be losing counts from others
>> whose ISP use the same IP. As for 'probably', how would it be if your
>> bank says your account is 'probably' secure? ;)
>>
>> Scotty
>
> The "probably" wasn't about security, it was about being able to
> exclude his own IP from his hits.
>
I was just messing around with ya.
Scotty
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183348 is a reply to message #183331] |
Sun, 20 October 2013 21:24 |
Tim Streater
Messages: 328
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <l416im$gut$2(at)dont-email(dot)me>,
Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:52:17 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>
>> No? Really? They show the 192.168.x.x (or other NAT IP), just as I
>> described.
>
> 192.168.x.x is not a public ip. It's a private IP in a reserved range for
> NAT.
It's not a reserved range for NAT. It's reserved for any private network
(as is 10.x.x.x) because it's guaranteed not to be routed on the
Internet. Any packet addressed to such an address will be dropped.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183354 is a reply to message #183332] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 01:04 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/20/2013 2:23 PM, Denis McMahon wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:41:43 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't know how NAT works, that's for sure.
>>
>> Yes, actually, I do.
>>
>>>> Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
>>>> each list the public IP.
>
>>> That is not the public IP. That is the private IP on my LAN. But you
>>> obviously don't understand the difference.
>
>> Exactly my point. Each of your computers does NOT have the same public
>> IP.
>
> Evan, you seem to be conflating the term "public ip" and "private ip".
>
> The definitions as I understand them:
>
> Public IP: The IP you present to the rest of the internet, for example,
> the ip address that an edge router at isp-x would see a packet as
> originating from when it arrives from your non isp-x connected origin
> system.
>
> Private IP: An internal IP address used on a network separated from the
> public internet by routers performing network address translation, such
> that any computer external to that network sees all traffic from
> computers within that network as originating from a single public ip
> address, or possibly a small set of public ip addresses.
>
> So a 192.168.x.x address would be a private IP address, not a public ip
> address. When bullis is in his hotel room in vegas with his blow up sheep
> and they're all using the hotel's wifi, they would normally all have
> private ips on the hotels private network, which through NAT would give
> them all the same public ip which I would see in my logs if they were
> accessing pictures of lolcats on my apache web server in the UK.
>
> (Note - I don't actually have a collection of lolcat pics on my server!)
>
No, Denis, Evan isn't confusing anything. He's just an ignorant troll -
and knows even less than Richard.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183355 is a reply to message #183322] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 01:05 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/20/2013 12:43 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Lew Pitcher
> <lew(dot)pitcher(at)digitalfreehold(dot)ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 20 October 2013 02:02, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
>> <evan(at)theobvious(dot)espphotography(dot)com(dot)invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply(at)example(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Evan fails to understand that many websites can share the same IP.
>>>
>>> I've got a challenge for you bullis.
>>>
>>> Explain how multiple websites share the same IP.
>>
>> The Domain Name system translates names (such as justlinux.ca or
>> pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca) into IP addresses. Two different names
>> can "resolve" into the same IP address.
>
> That was a chellenge for bullis. I'm quite confident most everyone
> else here understands how it works, but bullis doesn't. He spouts off
> at how smart he is yet shows his stupidity every time he opens his
> mouth.
>
Everyone except you, maybe. Even Richard understands it to a certain
extent.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183362 is a reply to message #183332] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 05:56 |
Evan Platt
Messages: 124
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:23:05 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon
<denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:41:43 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't know how NAT works, that's for sure.
>>
>> Yes, actually, I do.
>>
>>>> Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
>>>> each list the public IP.
>
>>> That is not the public IP. That is the private IP on my LAN. But you
>>> obviously don't understand the difference.
>
>> Exactly my point. Each of your computers does NOT have the same public
>> IP.
>
> Evan, you seem to be conflating the term "public ip" and "private ip".
No, I don't.
> The definitions as I understand them:
>
> Public IP: The IP you present to the rest of the internet, for example,
> the ip address that an edge router at isp-x would see a packet as
> originating from when it arrives from your non isp-x connected origin
> system.
>
> Private IP: An internal IP address used on a network separated from the
> public internet by routers performing network address translation, such
> that any computer external to that network sees all traffic from
> computers within that network as originating from a single public ip
> address, or possibly a small set of public ip addresses.
>
> So a 192.168.x.x address would be a private IP address, not a public ip
> address. When bullis is in his hotel room in vegas with his blow up sheep
> and they're all using the hotel's wifi, they would normally all have
> private ips on the hotels private network, which through NAT would give
> them all the same public ip which I would see in my logs if they were
> accessing pictures of lolcats on my apache web server in the UK.
>
> (Note - I don't actually have a collection of lolcat pics on my server!)
Yes, exactly.The public IP is assigned to a DEVICE. Only one device
truly has that public IP, the rest have a private IP.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183364 is a reply to message #183362] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 07:32 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/21/2013 1:56 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:23:05 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon
> <denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:41:43 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't know how NAT works, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> Yes, actually, I do.
>>>
>>>> > Run an ipconfig on each of these office computers and tell me they
>>>> > each list the public IP.
>>
>>>> That is not the public IP. That is the private IP on my LAN. But you
>>>> obviously don't understand the difference.
>>
>>> Exactly my point. Each of your computers does NOT have the same public
>>> IP.
>>
>> Evan, you seem to be conflating the term "public ip" and "private ip".
>
> No, I don't.
>
>> The definitions as I understand them:
>>
>> Public IP: The IP you present to the rest of the internet, for example,
>> the ip address that an edge router at isp-x would see a packet as
>> originating from when it arrives from your non isp-x connected origin
>> system.
>>
>> Private IP: An internal IP address used on a network separated from the
>> public internet by routers performing network address translation, such
>> that any computer external to that network sees all traffic from
>> computers within that network as originating from a single public ip
>> address, or possibly a small set of public ip addresses.
>>
>> So a 192.168.x.x address would be a private IP address, not a public ip
>> address. When bullis is in his hotel room in vegas with his blow up sheep
>> and they're all using the hotel's wifi, they would normally all have
>> private ips on the hotels private network, which through NAT would give
>> them all the same public ip which I would see in my logs if they were
>> accessing pictures of lolcats on my apache web server in the UK.
>>
>> (Note - I don't actually have a collection of lolcat pics on my server!)
>
> Yes, exactly.The public IP is assigned to a DEVICE. Only one device
> truly has that public IP, the rest have a private IP.
>
Then please explain how many users can have the "public ip" 192.168.x.x.
I have them on my LAN at home; customers have the *exact same* ip on
their LANs. In fact, I would be there are hundreds of thousands (or
millions) of computers out there connected to the internet which have
the ip address 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x, as indicated by ifconfig (or
the Linux equivalent ipconfig or ip -a).
How can this work?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183366 is a reply to message #183364] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 09:54 |
Arno Welzel
Messages: 317
Registered: October 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Am 21.10.2013 09:32, schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
> On 10/21/2013 1:56 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
[...]
>> Yes, exactly.The public IP is assigned to a DEVICE. Only one device
>> truly has that public IP, the rest have a private IP.
>>
>
> Then please explain how many users can have the "public ip" 192.168.x.x.
> I have them on my LAN at home; customers have the *exact same* ip on
> their LANs. In fact, I would be there are hundreds of thousands (or
> millions) of computers out there connected to the internet which have
> the ip address 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x, as indicated by ifconfig (or
> the Linux equivalent ipconfig or ip -a).
>
> How can this work?
By the use of NAT.
And no - NAT does not mean that all these computers with private IP
addresses have a public IP address as well. You can find this out the
hard way when trying to use protocols like IPSec or active FTP or when
you try to build a VPN between two LANs which have the same private
network address (e.g. 192.168.1.0/16).
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183368 is a reply to message #183366] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 10:06 |
Tim Streater
Messages: 328
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <5264F9E2(dot)5040407(at)arnowelzel(dot)de>,
Arno Welzel <usenet(at)arnowelzel(dot)de> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2013 09:32, schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
>
>> On 10/21/2013 1:56 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> [...]
>>> Yes, exactly.The public IP is assigned to a DEVICE. Only one device
>>> truly has that public IP, the rest have a private IP.
>>>
>>
>> Then please explain how many users can have the "public ip" 192.168.x.x.
>> I have them on my LAN at home; customers have the *exact same* ip on
>> their LANs. In fact, I would be there are hundreds of thousands (or
>> millions) of computers out there connected to the internet which have
>> the ip address 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x, as indicated by ifconfig (or
>> the Linux equivalent ipconfig or ip -a).
>>
>> How can this work?
>
> By the use of NAT.
Or by not connecting these networks to the Internet. I can have a
network of some computers somewhere, but I'm not obliged to connect them
externally.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183372 is a reply to message #183366] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 12:05 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/21/2013 5:54 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Am 21.10.2013 09:32, schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
>
>> On 10/21/2013 1:56 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> [...]
>>> Yes, exactly.The public IP is assigned to a DEVICE. Only one device
>>> truly has that public IP, the rest have a private IP.
>>>
>>
>> Then please explain how many users can have the "public ip" 192.168.x.x.
>> I have them on my LAN at home; customers have the *exact same* ip on
>> their LANs. In fact, I would be there are hundreds of thousands (or
>> millions) of computers out there connected to the internet which have
>> the ip address 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x, as indicated by ifconfig (or
>> the Linux equivalent ipconfig or ip -a).
>>
>> How can this work?
>
> By the use of NAT.
>
> And no - NAT does not mean that all these computers with private IP
> addresses have a public IP address as well. You can find this out the
> hard way when trying to use protocols like IPSec or active FTP or when
> you try to build a VPN between two LANs which have the same private
> network address (e.g. 192.168.1.0/16).
>
>
You should learn how to read. I KNOW how NAT works. I'm asking the
troll to explain.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183384 is a reply to message #183348] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 18:30 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:24:16 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
> It's not a reserved range for NAT. It's reserved for any private network
> (as is 10.x.x.x) because it's guaranteed not to be routed on the
> Internet. Any packet addressed to such an address will be dropped.
Point, my bad, yes you don't have to sit behind NAT on a reserved IP
range at all. You don't have to have any external connection.
I still think that Evan knows what he's talking about, but that there's
some terminology confusion.
For example, when I make a request, the server at the other end sees the
ip that my isp asigns to my router, that is my public ip. I consider that
the machine I'm sitting at doesn't have a public ip, it just has a
private ip, and my router nats the private ip onto the public ip.
However, some people might consider that every machine on my network had
the public ip of the router, and in some phrasings that would be a
correct statement (any request they make outside of the lan appears to
come from that public ip), but it's not a true public ip as incoming
requests on that ip are not guaranteed to hit any specific machine, and
in fact won't go anywhere unless I've opened up and mapped a port on the
router for the incoming connections.
So although I consider that in my frame of reference, and the terminology
that I use, that each machine on my lan has just a private ip, and the lan
as a whole has a public ip, I can conceive that in some peoples
phraseology, especially people who might have had a different learning
path in networking generally and tcp/ip specifically to the one I've
followed, might consider that every machine on my lan had the same public
ip, but separate private ips.
What I am confused about, though, is a post where Evan appeared to be
saying that the lan side ip (ie 192.168.x.x.) was a public ip? Perhaps he
just did what I do occasionally, and got his mucking fords wuddled?
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com
|
|
|
|
| Re: excluding an ip from count [message #183385 is a reply to message #183384] |
Mon, 21 October 2013 18:34 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:30:23 +0000, Denis McMahon wrote:
> What I am confused about, though, is a post where Evan appeared to be
> saying that the lan side ip (ie 192.168.x.x.) was a public ip? Perhaps
> he just did what I do occasionally, and got his mucking fords wuddled?
Hmm, after going back and more carefully reading the post concerned, it
may be that I didn't read it at first as it was intended to be read.
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]