Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #8819 > unrolled thread

how to save the visitors ip addresses

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  how to save the visitors ip addresses nag <visitnag@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 01:44 -0700
    Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses "Olaf S." <thesys@gmx.de> - 2013-03-25 12:11 +0100
    Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Salvatore <sal@yojimbo.hack.invalid> - 2013-03-25 11:13 +0000
      Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses nag <visitnag@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 04:36 -0700
    Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 08:28 -0400
      Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-03-25 12:42 +0000
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-03-25 06:02 -0700
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-25 13:09 +0000
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 09:26 -0400
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-03-25 09:55 -0700
              Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 01:44 +0000
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-03-25 13:34 +0000
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-25 14:54 +0000
              Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 13:24 -0400
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-03-25 10:03 -0700
              Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 01:57 +0000
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 13:25 -0400
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-03-25 19:15 +0100
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 09:22 -0400
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-03-27 01:29 -0400
    Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-03-25 19:39 -0400
      Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-03-26 00:21 +0000
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 20:55 -0400
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> - 2013-03-26 01:01 +0000
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 02:10 +0000
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 02:01 +0000
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-03-26 03:10 +0000
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 15:18 +0000
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-03-25 22:39 -0700
      Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-03-25 18:31 -0700
        Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 21:47 -0400
          Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-03-25 19:34 -0700
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 23:27 -0400
              Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-03-26 09:10 +0000
                Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-26 06:16 -0400
                Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-03-26 11:42 +0100
                  Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-03-26 11:47 +0000
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-25 23:38 -0400
              Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-03-25 21:13 -0700
                Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-03-26 06:16 -0400
            Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 15:10 +0000
      Re: how to save the visitors ip addresses The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 01:43 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8839

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:44:33 -0700 (PDT), nag wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have a hit counter and visitors who are online in my webpage. I want to save the visitors IP addresses permanently (I will remove it manually). How can I code this? I am using a download file called visitors.php. I tried increasing the sessionTime. 
> 

The problem I see with capturing IP addresses is the fact that any number
of users can use the same IP, at the same time.
The IP only identifies the server, it does not identify each and every
individual user.
Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post of
mine. So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.

What you should look into using, is a cookie.
With a cookie, you can identify the user more accurately.
Or at least some other means of identifying the actual machine being used.

I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8840

richard wrote:

> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post
> of mine.

That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.

> So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.

Well, sure. Why not? It was the most logical reason.

> I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Usenet posting. Can't you ever 
get *anything* right?

No.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8841

On 3/25/2013 8:21 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> richard wrote:
>
>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post
>> of mine.
>
> That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.
>

That's one possibility.  Another is they both have the same ISP, and 
DHCP assigned richard's old IP address to the new person.

Or they have the same ISP and that ISP is using round-robin routers, 
like AOL does.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8842

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:21:43 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

>richard wrote:
>
>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post
>> of mine.
>
>That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.

Not with AOL it wasn't.



-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/    twitter: @sandrilaLtd      

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8849

On 26/03/13 01:01, Paul Herber wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:21:43 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> richard wrote:
>>
>>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post
>>> of mine.
>>
>> That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.
>
> Not with AOL it wasn't.
>
>

Indeed. dhcp musical chairs.

Its vanishingly unlikely that a person who gets your ip address just 
vacated will be posting to the same newsgroup, but if you are both in 
the same geographical area its entirely possible

But a much more likely thing is that the ISP is using an 'invisible' 
proxy. That is all request for port 80 traffic irrespective of actual 
final destination are vectored to their proxy.

When all your customers tend to watch the same porn, this saves a lot of 
upstream bandwidth, and its a great way to create 'walled gardens' where 
only YOUR porn is allowed.

if the ISP was AOL I would say its a virtual certainty, but its unusual 
to proxy nntp traffic. But it might as the poster above say, be NATTED.


Certainly pretty much all of some mobile operators IP addresses are 
NATTED in some way.


Its nasty because you cant then accept incoming request bit there you go.

Probably the smart phones don't have any server capability anway.
>


-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8848

On 26/03/13 00:21, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> richard wrote:
>
>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post
>> of mine.
>
> That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.
>
>> So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>
> Well, sure. Why not? It was the most logical reason.
>
>> I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?
>
> And that has absolutely nothing to do with Usenet posting. Can't you ever
> get *anything* right?
>

he never said it had.. its a valid question, and has peripheral bearing 
on PHP so here goes.

The browser sends not only a page request, but the name of the site to 
which it wants to connect. Apache is smart enough to look at that info 
and decide on that basis where the request will be vectored.


Sop conceptually the full address of the web server at 'machine level' 
is e.g.

207.138.56.127:80:www.thisserver.com

IP address : port: name of this server


> No.
>


-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8851

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> richard the sto0pid wrote:
>>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the
>>> exact same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of
>>> a post of mine.
>>
>> That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.
>>
>>> So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>>
>> Well, sure. Why not? It was the most logical reason.
>>
>>> I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
>>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one
>>> IP?
>>
>> And that has absolutely nothing to do with Usenet posting. Can't you
>> ever get *anything* right?
>
> he never said it had.. its a valid question, and has peripheral bearing
> on PHP so here goes.
> 
> The browser sends not only a page request, ...

Whoa. Stop right there. RtS was not talking about browsers and their 
connecting IPs with web servers. He said "person in usenet who had the 
exact same IP as mine." Someone who sent a Usenet post.

And since Bullis lives in motels, there is no "corporate proxy" concerns 
either. If there actually was such a poster with the same IP, it was 
either someone staying at the same motel or was a nymshift by the man 
himself (which, if you knew RtS, would be the most likely case).

-- 
   -bts
   -Get to know Bullis before you make judgments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8867

On 26/03/13 03:10, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> richard the sto0pid wrote:
>>>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the
>>>> exact same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of
>>>> a post of mine.
>>>
>>> That's impossible, unless you are both behind the same router.
>>>
>>>> So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>>>
>>> Well, sure. Why not? It was the most logical reason.
>>>
>>>> I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
>>>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one
>>>> IP?
>>>
>>> And that has absolutely nothing to do with Usenet posting. Can't you
>>> ever get *anything* right?
>>
>> he never said it had.. its a valid question, and has peripheral bearing
>> on PHP so here goes.
>>
>> The browser sends not only a page request, ...
>
> Whoa. Stop right there. RtS was not talking about browsers and their
> connecting IPs with web servers. He said "person in usenet who had the
> exact same IP as mine." Someone who sent a Usenet post.
>
> And since Bullis lives in motels, there is no "corporate proxy" concerns
> either. If there actually was such a poster with the same IP, it was
> either someone staying at the same motel or was a nymshift by the man
> himself (which, if you knew RtS, would be the most likely case).
>

then there was likely a hotel NAT system in play.

although albasani dont seem to log it, no one out in netland knows that 
my ip address is 192.168.0.1

Nor, since about 100 million other people around on that same address, 
which is unrouteable on the internet by decree, would it do them a power 
of good if they did.

All they can see is my public IP address which IS route-able. But thats 
shared with my wife's computer and a couple of other machines behind my 
NAT  equipped router.

And its not just homes, offices  and hotels that do NAT. Ive seen whole 
mobile networks use it as well.

If you don't need incoming capabilities, you can in principle have over 
10,000 machines or more behind a NAT service.


-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8855

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:21:43 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

>> So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>
>Well, sure. Why not? It was the most logical reason.

He's been busted for nymshifting a number of times, although he never
admits it.

>> I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?
>
>And that has absolutely nothing to do with Usenet posting. Can't you ever 
>get *anything* right?

That's his one hit wonder. He claims I've never been able to answer
that, yet I've answered that exact question to him a dozen times.

He's either a troll, or has a bad case of Alzheimer.

Or both.
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8843

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:39:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
wrote:

>The problem I see with capturing IP addresses is the fact that any number
>of users can use the same IP, at the same time.

*sigh* here we go again.

Yes, that is correct, however this would be people in the same
location - a hotel, or a house. Me and California and you in Texas
wouldn't have the same IP, however if I were in a hotel, I may have
the same IP as another person in the hotel.

>The IP only identifies the server, it does not identify each and every
>individual user.

No, the IP does not identify the SERVER, bullis.It identifies the
USER.

>Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post of
>mine. So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.

Bullshit. The odds of that are probably a billion to 1.

>What you should look into using, is a cookie.
>With a cookie, you can identify the user more accurately.
>Or at least some other means of identifying the actual machine being used.
>
>I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.

Some? Try everyone. If you had any credibility here bullis, you just
lost it.

>Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?

I've explained all of this to you a dozen times. You're either a
troll, or you're just too dumb to understand.

Let's go to fantasy land here for a minute, and pretend you have a
wife and kid. I call your house. How can I call one number, and speak
with either you, your wife, or your kid? Easily. The same way a
webhost can have multiple domains. They're all on the same physical
machine. a HTTP request contains the website the requestor is asking
for.

Perhaps it's best you stay out of a group discussing something as
advanced as PHP, and go to a group discussing... oh, I don't know,
shiny things?
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8846

On 3/25/2013 9:31 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:39:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The problem I see with capturing IP addresses is the fact that any number
>> of users can use the same IP, at the same time.
>
> *sigh* here we go again.
>
> Yes, that is correct, however this would be people in the same
> location - a hotel, or a house. Me and California and you in Texas
> wouldn't have the same IP, however if I were in a hotel, I may have
> the same IP as another person in the hotel.
>

Incorrect.  For instance, my wife's ex-company routed all internet from 
all of their sites (in several states around the U.S.) are all routed 
through the same proxy.  This is quite common in larger companies; it 
simplifies maintenance.

>> The IP only identifies the server, it does not identify each and every
>> individual user.
>
> No, the IP does not identify the SERVER, bullis.It identifies the
> USER.
>

In this case Richard is correct.  Externally, all users behind the same 
proxy or router will have the same IP address to the external world.  No 
one outside the LAN would have any idea what the real IP address is.

>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post of
>> mine. So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>
> Bullshit. The odds of that are probably a billion to 1.
>

Actually, quite possible.  It does happen.

>> What you should look into using, is a cookie.
>> With a cookie, you can identify the user more accurately.
>> Or at least some other means of identifying the actual machine being used.
>>
>> I know some will insist that what I say is not possible.
>
> Some? Try everyone. If you had any credibility here bullis, you just
> lost it.
>

Nope.  Only those who do not understand how ip addresses work.

And even if it were a billion to 1 - with 4 billion ip addresses out 
there, chances are very high it WILL happen.

>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?
>
> I've explained all of this to you a dozen times. You're either a
> troll, or you're just too dumb to understand.
>
> Let's go to fantasy land here for a minute, and pretend you have a
> wife and kid. I call your house. How can I call one number, and speak
> with either you, your wife, or your kid? Easily. The same way a
> webhost can have multiple domains. They're all on the same physical
> machine. a HTTP request contains the website the requestor is asking
> for.
>
> Perhaps it's best you stay out of a group discussing something as
> advanced as PHP, and go to a group discussing... oh, I don't know,
> shiny things?
>

Perhaps you should learn how ip assignment works before correcting 
someone who obviously knows more about it than you do.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8850

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:47:49 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>> Yes, that is correct, however this would be people in the same
>> location - a hotel, or a house. Me and California and you in Texas
>> wouldn't have the same IP, however if I were in a hotel, I may have
>> the same IP as another person in the hotel.
>>
>
>Incorrect.  For instance, my wife's ex-company routed all internet from 
>all of their sites (in several states around the U.S.) are all routed 
>through the same proxy.  This is quite common in larger companies; it 
>simplifies maintenance.

I was speaking about in general residential use. Yes, large companies
may proxy behind a single IP, but in the general sense for residential
customers, not likely.
>
>>> The IP only identifies the server, it does not identify each and every
>>> individual user.
>>
>> No, the IP does not identify the SERVER, bullis.It identifies the
>> USER.
>>
>
>In this case Richard is correct.  Externally, all users behind the same 
>proxy or router will have the same IP address to the external world.  No 
>one outside the LAN would have any idea what the real IP address is.

In WHAT case? 

If my IP were visible in my headers, it would be MY IP, not some
"server". richard does not understand what a 'server' is.


>
>>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post of
>>> mine. So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>>
>> Bullshit. The odds of that are probably a billion to 1.
>>
>
>Actually, quite possible.  It does happen.

Really? So, you mean to tell me that if ALL IP's were visible in
headers, and I posted to usenet, there's a HIGH chance that someone
coming here a few minutes later posting to this same group would have
the IP I just had? Bullshit. You're as dumb as bullis.

>> Some? Try everyone. If you had any credibility here bullis, you just
>> lost it.
>>
>
>Nope.  Only those who do not understand how ip addresses work.
>
>And even if it were a billion to 1 - with 4 billion ip addresses out 
>there, chances are very high it WILL happen.

Riiight.

>
>>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?
>>
>> I've explained all of this to you a dozen times. You're either a
>> troll, or you're just too dumb to understand.
>>
>> Let's go to fantasy land here for a minute, and pretend you have a
>> wife and kid. I call your house. How can I call one number, and speak
>> with either you, your wife, or your kid? Easily. The same way a
>> webhost can have multiple domains. They're all on the same physical
>> machine. a HTTP request contains the website the requestor is asking
>> for.
>>
>> Perhaps it's best you stay out of a group discussing something as
>> advanced as PHP, and go to a group discussing... oh, I don't know,
>> shiny things?
>>
>
>Perhaps you should learn how ip assignment works before correcting 
>someone who obviously knows more about it than you do.

I understand how IP assignment works. And if you believe bullis
understands anything, you're a bigger troll than he is.

Not to shoot down your hero, but let me give you a good laugh.

From: richard <member@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Subject: question for evan platt the answer man
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:53:01 -0700
Message-ID: <0aaa65hbuit2ab5eot9spkt9k03qrq0qht@4ax.com>

"As you may know, I have been touring the country side for the past
two
years. I stay at various motels and get online using their wifi
system.

Assume for the moment that the motel has 100 rooms.  100 guests all
have computers and all are connected to the system. 

Assuming again, that all are connected to the same news service that
posts an IP in the headers. All 100 post to the same thread in the
same time frame of say 10 minutes. With none having lost a connection
so their IP would not change for that reason.

Now tell us, we the world, sir, exactly how many users will have a
different IP?

Now do recall smartboy, that the ISP knows only that the motel is
connected. Which is connected via hard wired cable. The ISP gives the
motel a constant static IP. ONE IP.


Let us assume again, that 100 people in the same motel are surfing the
net. Each machine is surfing a different website. Now how is that
possible with only 1 IP?

I'm sure that you are also well aware that an ISP is usually assigned
a block of IP's Now I know you know what an octet is so with the
combination of the last two octets, that gives a possible 65,000 IPs.
Yet, the ISP has 500,000 customers. 200,000 are online right now.

You say, one machine, one IP. Please explain then how the ISP can
handle this situation."

Read the whole thread. It's hysterical.
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8852

On 3/25/2013 10:34 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:47:49 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that is correct, however this would be people in the same
>>> location - a hotel, or a house. Me and California and you in Texas
>>> wouldn't have the same IP, however if I were in a hotel, I may have
>>> the same IP as another person in the hotel.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect.  For instance, my wife's ex-company routed all internet from
>> all of their sites (in several states around the U.S.) are all routed
>> through the same proxy.  This is quite common in larger companies; it
>> simplifies maintenance.
>
> I was speaking about in general residential use. Yes, large companies
> may proxy behind a single IP, but in the general sense for residential
> customers, not likely.

That is not what you said.  And it is also not the most common access to 
the internet.  Business users are - by a long shot.

>>
>>>> The IP only identifies the server, it does not identify each and every
>>>> individual user.
>>>
>>> No, the IP does not identify the SERVER, bullis.It identifies the
>>> USER.
>>>
>>
>> In this case Richard is correct.  Externally, all users behind the same
>> proxy or router will have the same IP address to the external world.  No
>> one outside the LAN would have any idea what the real IP address is.
>
> In WHAT case?
>

In the case of the IP address identifying the server.  It could be a 
proxy server, or a router.  But unless your computer is connected 
directly to a cable modem, it probably WON'T be the user.

> If my IP were visible in my headers, it would be MY IP, not some
> "server". richard does not understand what a 'server' is.
>

Incorrect.  It would be the IP of the proxy or router you are using. 
For instance, my header would show the IP address Verizon's DHCP 
currently assigns to my home, because I am working from home.  But I 
have 5 computers active on this network - all with different internal IP 
addresses.  However, externally, they all have the same IP address.

Even if I were to directly connect a computer to my FIOS modem, the 
computer would have a different address than what shows up on the 
internet, because the Verizon modem is also a router and DHCP server for 
the LAN.

>
>>
>>>> Years ago I happened to run across a person in usenet who had the exact
>>>> same IP as mine and he had posted within a couple of minutes of a post of
>>>> mine. So naturally, I get accused of nymshifting.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. The odds of that are probably a billion to 1.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, quite possible.  It does happen.
>
> Really? So, you mean to tell me that if ALL IP's were visible in
> headers, and I posted to usenet, there's a HIGH chance that someone
> coming here a few minutes later posting to this same group would have
> the IP I just had? Bullshit. You're as dumb as bullis.
>

The only IP visible in the header is the one assigned to your site by 
your ISP.  And it is quite possible someone could get the same address, 
and be interested in the same newsgroup.

You obviously don't understand how things work.  Even the Power Ball has 
odds of around 170 million to one - but that doesn't mean no one wins. 
People win on a regular basis.

And I never said it was likely.  But it is quite possible.  To deny that 
possibility shows just how stoopid you are.

Let me give you another example.  When I was working for IBM, we had a 
problem with one particular program.  Every once in a while it would 
crash.  No rhyme or reason we could determine.  We finally found the 
problem - there was a sequence of 4 assembler instructions which were 
not coded quite correctly.  If the OS did a task change while these 4 
instructions (out of over 1,000,000 total lines of assembler code), the 
state might not be saved properly.  And if this were the case, the 
program would crash.

Now what are the odds of a task switch in the middle of those 4 
instructions (which, BTW, were not a very heavily used part of the 
code)?  Pretty low - much more than the 1,000,000 to 4 you would think. 
  But it failed quite often until we found the problem.

>>> Some? Try everyone. If you had any credibility here bullis, you just
>>> lost it.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.  Only those who do not understand how ip addresses work.
>>
>> And even if it were a billion to 1 - with 4 billion ip addresses out
>> there, chances are very high it WILL happen.
>
> Riiight.
>

I'm glad you agree.

>>
>>>> Then how is it that a webhost can have a multitude of domains on one IP?
>>>
>>> I've explained all of this to you a dozen times. You're either a
>>> troll, or you're just too dumb to understand.
>>>
>>> Let's go to fantasy land here for a minute, and pretend you have a
>>> wife and kid. I call your house. How can I call one number, and speak
>>> with either you, your wife, or your kid? Easily. The same way a
>>> webhost can have multiple domains. They're all on the same physical
>>> machine. a HTTP request contains the website the requestor is asking
>>> for.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's best you stay out of a group discussing something as
>>> advanced as PHP, and go to a group discussing... oh, I don't know,
>>> shiny things?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps you should learn how ip assignment works before correcting
>> someone who obviously knows more about it than you do.
>
> I understand how IP assignment works. And if you believe bullis
> understands anything, you're a bigger troll than he is.
>
> Not to shoot down your hero, but let me give you a good laugh.
>

Richard is not my hero.  He and I have gotten into it quite regularly. 
However, in this case he is MUCH more correct than you.

It also looks like you're just a troll who gets his kicks by countering 
anything Richard says, right or wrong.

You should pay attention.  You might learn something.  However, I doubt 
it.  Trolls are too stoopid to learn anything.

> From: richard <member@newsguy.com>
> Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
> Subject: question for evan platt the answer man
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:53:01 -0700
> Message-ID: <0aaa65hbuit2ab5eot9spkt9k03qrq0qht@4ax.com>
>
> "As you may know, I have been touring the country side for the past
> two
> years. I stay at various motels and get online using their wifi
> system.
>
> Assume for the moment that the motel has 100 rooms.  100 guests all
> have computers and all are connected to the system.
>
> Assuming again, that all are connected to the same news service that
> posts an IP in the headers. All 100 post to the same thread in the
> same time frame of say 10 minutes. With none having lost a connection
> so their IP would not change for that reason.
>
> Now tell us, we the world, sir, exactly how many users will have a
> different IP?
>

Depending on the setup, there is a very good chance all will share the 
same IP - that of the motel.

> Now do recall smartboy, that the ISP knows only that the motel is
> connected. Which is connected via hard wired cable. The ISP gives the
> motel a constant static IP. ONE IP.
>

Yup.  And that is the only one known outside of the motel's LAN.

>
> Let us assume again, that 100 people in the same motel are surfing the
> net. Each machine is surfing a different website. Now how is that
> possible with only 1 IP?
>

It's called Network Address Translation.  You should lean what you're 
talking about before contradicting someone who knows more than you.

> I'm sure that you are also well aware that an ISP is usually assigned
> a block of IP's Now I know you know what an octet is so with the
> combination of the last two octets, that gives a possible 65,000 IPs.
> Yet, the ISP has 500,000 customers. 200,000 are online right now.
>

Sure, the ISP is assigned a block of IPs.  But the ISP may have as 
little as 1 IP assigned, or as many as 16 million out of the same block. 
  Most are in between those two figures, and most of the companies with 
Class A IP blocks subdivide those and parcel them out to others.  Many 
of the Class B owners do the same, and even a few of the Class C do 
(even though they only have 256 addresses).

> You say, one machine, one IP. Please explain then how the ISP can
> handle this situation."
>

The ISP would have to have 200K IPs.  This could be part of a Class A 
block or multiple Class B blocks.  But if they have 500,000 customers, 
they will definitely have more than one Class B block.  However, they 
would not need 500,000 IP addresses - that's what DHCP is really about. 
  Assign the IP address only when it is needed.

> Read the whole thread. It's hysterical.
>

I don't need to.  I've seen how stoopid you are.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8858

In article <kir4fh$n92$1@dont-email.me>,
 Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Sure, the ISP is assigned a block of IPs.  But the ISP may have as 
> little as 1 IP assigned, or as many as 16 million out of the same block. 
>   Most are in between those two figures, and most of the companies with 
> Class A IP blocks subdivide those and parcel them out to others.  Many 
> of the Class B owners do the same, and even a few of the Class C do 
> (even though they only have 256 addresses).
> 
> > You say, one machine, one IP. Please explain then how the ISP can
> > handle this situation."

> The ISP would have to have 200K IPs.  This could be part of a Class A 
> block or multiple Class B blocks.  But if they have 500,000 customers, 
> they will definitely have more than one Class B block.  However, they 
> would not need 500,000 IP addresses - that's what DHCP is really about. 
>   Assign the IP address only when it is needed.

Why are you talking about Class A, B, or C? These are concepts that were 
abandoned in the 90s, with the introduction of CIDR. It's true that 
prior to that, blocks were allocated in that way, but not any longer.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8860

On 3/26/2013 5:10 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <kir4fh$n92$1@dont-email.me>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Sure, the ISP is assigned a block of IPs.  But the ISP may have as
>> little as 1 IP assigned, or as many as 16 million out of the same
>> block.   Most are in between those two figures, and most of the
>> companies with Class A IP blocks subdivide those and parcel them out
>> to others.  Many of the Class B owners do the same, and even a few of
>> the Class C do (even though they only have 256 addresses).
>>
>> > You say, one machine, one IP. Please explain then how the ISP can
>> > handle this situation."
>
>> The ISP would have to have 200K IPs.  This could be part of a Class A
>> block or multiple Class B blocks.  But if they have 500,000 customers,
>> they will definitely have more than one Class B block.  However, they
>> would not need 500,000 IP addresses - that's what DHCP is really
>> about.   Assign the IP address only when it is needed.
>
> Why are you talking about Class A, B, or C? These are concepts that were
> abandoned in the 90s, with the introduction of CIDR. It's true that
> prior to that, blocks were allocated in that way, but not any longer.
>

Actually, they are by ARIN.  They are then suballocated by the owners.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8863

Tim Streater wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Sure, the ISP is assigned a block of IPs.  But the ISP may have as
>> little as 1 IP assigned, or as many as 16 million out of the same block.
>> […]
>> The ISP would have to have 200K IPs.  This could be part of a Class A
>> block or multiple Class B blocks.  But if they have 500,000 customers,
>> they will definitely have more than one Class B block.  However, they
>> would not need 500,000 IP addresses - that's what DHCP is really about.
>>   Assign the IP address only when it is needed.
> 
> Why are you talking about Class A, B, or C? These are concepts that were
> abandoned in the 90s, with the introduction of CIDR. It's true that
> prior to that, blocks were allocated in that way, but not any longer.

Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) did _not_ supersede class-based IP 
address ranges in 1993.  However, that is also one reason why IPv4 addresses 
are about to run out [1], why registries are beginning to assign non-class-
based ranges [2], and why ultimately migration to IPv6 is important to the 
continued operation of the Internet.

I refer you to <http://www.iana.org/numbers> pp. to clarify your 
misconceptions.


PointedEars
___________
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion>
[2] <http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/reaching-the-
last-8>
-- 
    realism:    HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness:    XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
                                                    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8865

In article <1928083.5czRgZtFYk@PointedEars.de>,
 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
> 
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Sure, the ISP is assigned a block of IPs.  But the ISP may have as
> >> little as 1 IP assigned, or as many as 16 million out of the same block.
> >> […]
> >> The ISP would have to have 200K IPs.  This could be part of a Class A
> >> block or multiple Class B blocks.  But if they have 500,000 customers,
> >> they will definitely have more than one Class B block.  However, they
> >> would not need 500,000 IP addresses - that's what DHCP is really about.
> >>   Assign the IP address only when it is needed.
> > 
> > Why are you talking about Class A, B, or C? These are concepts that were
> > abandoned in the 90s, with the introduction of CIDR. It's true that
> > prior to that, blocks were allocated in that way, but not any longer.
> 
> Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) did _not_ supersede class-based IP 
> address ranges in 1993.  However, that is also one reason why IPv4 addresses 
> are about to run out [1], why registries are beginning to assign non-class-
> based ranges [2], and why ultimately migration to IPv6 is important to the 
> continued operation of the Internet.

What do you mean "beginning to". Don't talk cock. It's been the case 
since the 90s that space has *not* been allocated on the old class 
basis. When making a request to as it might be RIPE, you might end up 
being allocated a /24 (old style class C) or a /16 (old style class B) 
but that was just a coincidence. A /21 was a likely request (IIRC, it's 
been 6 or 7 years since I was making such requests).

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8853

On 3/25/2013 10:34 PM, Evan Platt wrote:

<nothing worth repeating>

I did a little looking around usenet.  It pretty much proves you are a 
troll who is stalking Richard.  It must gall you to the limit to find 
out Richard knows more about something than you do.

I would suggest you take your stalking other places.  We're on to you now.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8854

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:38:09 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/25/2013 10:34 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
>
><nothing worth repeating>

But you already did repeat it.

>I did a little looking around usenet.  It pretty much proves you are a 
>troll who is stalking Richard.  It must gall you to the limit to find 
>out Richard knows more about something than you do.
>
>I would suggest you take your stalking other places.  We're on to you now.

I did some looking around usenet too. Looks like you're real popular
too LOL..
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8861

On 3/26/2013 12:13 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:38:09 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2013 10:34 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
>>
>> <nothing worth repeating>
>
> But you already did repeat it.
>
>> I did a little looking around usenet.  It pretty much proves you are a
>> troll who is stalking Richard.  It must gall you to the limit to find
>> out Richard knows more about something than you do.
>>
>> I would suggest you take your stalking other places.  We're on to you now.
>
> I did some looking around usenet too. Looks like you're real popular
> too LOL..
>

Yup.  Lots of people like me.  But then I don't stalk people.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web