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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#11518

On 10/21/2013 1:56 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
> 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.
>

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

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

#11520

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

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

#11522

In article <5264F9E2.5040407@arnowelzel.de>,
 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.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

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

#11526

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

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

#11495

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@gmail.com

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

#11503

In article <l416im$gut$2@dont-email.me>,
 Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.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

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

#11536

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@gmail.com

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

#11537

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@gmail.com

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

#11474

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

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

#11480

On Sunday 20 October 2013 02:02, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
<evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:

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

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

#11488

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Lew Pitcher
<lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday 20 October 2013 02:02, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
><evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply@example.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.

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

#11510

On 10/20/2013 12:43 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Lew Pitcher
> <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 20 October 2013 02:02, in comp.lang.php, "Evan Platt"
>> <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:52:56 -0400, richard <noreply@example.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@attglobal.net
==================

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

#11493

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@gmail.com

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

#11478

On Saturday 19 October 2013 19:52, in comp.lang.php, "richard"
<noreply@example.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@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.

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

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

#11459

On 19/10/13 16:06, Evan Platt 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.
>
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.

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

#11462

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:06:52 -0700, 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.

For instance,  on a site I mange all the web traffic from folks
working at the local hospital has the same IP. 

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

#11465

On 19/10/13 22:50, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:06:52 -0700, 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.
>
> 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.

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

#11463

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

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

#11497

On 10/19/2013 2:52 PM, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:52 -0700, Scott Johnson
> <noonehome@chalupasworld.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

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

#11484

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web