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

Groups > comp.lang.php > #11439 > unrolled thread

excluding an ip from count

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

Contents

  excluding an ip from count richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-15 19:38 -0400
    Re: excluding an ip from count "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-16 00:17 +0000
    Re: excluding an ip from count Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> - 2013-10-16 09:44 -0700
      Re: excluding an ip from count richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-16 15:38 -0400
        Re: excluding an ip from count Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-10-16 15:40 -0700
          Re: excluding an ip from count Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> - 2013-10-18 11:29 -0700
            Re: excluding an ip from count Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-10-18 16:14 -0700
              Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-19 08:06 -0700
                Re: excluding an ip from count Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2013-10-19 11:34 -0400
                  Re: excluding an ip from count Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-19 23:23 +0000
                  Re: excluding an ip from count richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-19 19:52 -0400
                    Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-19 22:31 -0400
                    Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-19 22:24 -0700
                      Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-20 09:13 -0400
                        Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-20 06:52 -0700
                          Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-20 10:32 -0400
                            Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-20 09:41 -0700
                              Re: excluding an ip from count Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-20 18:23 +0000
                                Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-20 21:04 -0400
                                Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-20 22:56 -0700
                                  Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-21 03:32 -0400
                                    Re: excluding an ip from count Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-21 11:54 +0200
                                      Re: excluding an ip from count Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-21 11:06 +0100
                                      Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-21 08:05 -0400
                          Re: excluding an ip from count Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-20 18:14 +0000
                            Re: excluding an ip from count Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-20 22:24 +0100
                              Re: excluding an ip from count Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 18:30 +0000
                                Re: excluding an ip from count Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 18:34 +0000
                    Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-19 23:02 -0700
                      Re: excluding an ip from count Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2013-10-20 10:12 -0400
                        Re: excluding an ip from count Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2013-10-20 09:43 -0700
                          Re: excluding an ip from count Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-20 21:05 -0400
                        Re: excluding an ip from count Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-20 18:07 +0000
                    Re: excluding an ip from count Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2013-10-20 10:08 -0400
                Re: excluding an ip from count The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-19 18:44 +0100
                Re: excluding an ip from count Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2013-10-19 14:50 -0700
                  Re: excluding an ip from count The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-19 23:37 +0100
              Re: excluding an ip from count Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2013-10-19 14:52 -0700
                Re: excluding an ip from count Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-10-20 11:37 -0700
    Re: excluding an ip from count Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-20 16:56 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#11439 — excluding an ip from count

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11440

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

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

#11441

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();
}

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

#11442

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.

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

#11443

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.

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

#11450

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

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

#11454

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

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

#11456

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
<noonehome@chalupasworld.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.

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

#11458

On Saturday 19 October 2013 11:06, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
<evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
> <noonehome@chalupasworld.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

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

#11466

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:34:36 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:

> Also, many clients use IPv4 NAT ...

And that's *before* CGNAT raises it's ugly head ...

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

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

#11467

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@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
>> <noonehome@chalupasworld.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?

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

#11469

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@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
>>> <noonehome@chalupasworld.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@attglobal.net
==================

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

#11471

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply@example.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.

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

#11476

On 10/20/2013 1:24 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply@example.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@attglobal.net
==================

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

#11477

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:13:59 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/20/2013 1:24 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply@example.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.

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

#11481

On 10/20/2013 9:52 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:13:59 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2013 1:24 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply@example.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@attglobal.net
==================

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

#11487

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.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.

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

#11496

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:41:43 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:32:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.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@gmail.com

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

#11509

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@attglobal.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@attglobal.net
==================

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

#11516

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:23:05 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon
<denismfmcmahon@gmail.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@attglobal.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.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web