This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I changed the intro making it very simple and clear. 0waldo 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Wow! I suppose that I was totally wrong about that one! 0waldo 15:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
A comparable analogy to an IP address is a telephone number. On a telephone network, the phone numbers must be unique. Generally speaking, each location has one phone number that allows anyone to dial that phone directly by using their unique phone number. Likewise, a computer is assigned a unique IP address which let's any other computer to connect directly to it by using their unique IP address. In reality, it is possible for a location to have multiple phone numbers (perhaps primarily larger businesses) and a computer can also be assigned multiple IP addresses which is pretty cool.
V.S.
A computer’s IP address is very much like a telephone number; they are both unique and allow communications with local or remote network devices. Much like a multi-line telephone, a network device may have multiple IP addresses assigned to it.
I think the latter is better suited but what do I know, anyhow? 0waldo 15:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Local and long distance call makes no sense? What about LAN vs. WAN connection? 0waldo 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cburnett: I made new and improved changes... Thanks 0waldo 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Cburnett: I really liked your last edit; the concept that is, and I made some minor changes that I feel will enable the reader to better understand the basic concept of an IP address via minor syntax changes. 0waldo 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cburnett: I removed the "colloquial usage" line. 0waldo 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be important to list the differences in a Static IP address vs a Dynamic IP address. If I were able to, I would. Can an expert out there add this please?
I see no reason to merge into Internet Protocol. Cburnett 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cburnett; keep this individual page without merge. 0waldo 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to present in the article from what I can surmize. Perhaps there can be an inclusion of this somewhere. - Zero Talk 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Most of the dial up service providers provide DHCP. Even individual cable line providers can also assign DHCP to their clients. Some ISPs assign static IP to clients on request or on the pay of additional cost. Kumarsarma ( talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are client of local internet cable service provider, you need DSL or ADSL routers that can be provided by your ISP and static IP can be assigned to it. Kumarsarma ( talk) 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel that some editor abuse again wikipedia!? What is so special about http://whatismyipaddress.com/ to be allowed above all other websites that are much much better. Furthermore site have not only static advert but also a couple annoying advvertisement (as pop-up that jump every time when you visit site, then annoying blending and scrolling advert in middle of screan etc...) Arrrggg......... Only reason could be that some of wikipedia editor use his power and simple allow his own site. Here was a discussion about years a go and that time everybody agree to remove any single ip address displaying site except articles about tcp/ip protocols on well known sites. Hmmm........ Looks to me as abusing of power again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graciella ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
The website specified by you may not show accurate results in look up and tracing if your connection is DHCP client or connected to Proxy server. I believe that members who posted information in this page didn't explain clearly about static IPs, DHCP and proxy connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not have personally problems with popups but have problem that someone post link to only one site (that has been chosed above all others and have obviosly special status) and generate a huge traffic to that site. In fact the site in question is advert for free on wikipedia and in the same time administrator make his own site ugly with annoying popups and scrolling advert in middle of screen and generate money etc). As first why to place link only to one site with a lot popups and advertisements? The site does not have anything special. Administrator, friend, neighbour or whatever could be reason but visitor friendly, educative and usefull site not for sure... Wikipedia is not place to place advertisement and it was advertisement. Graciella
It's hard to understand what you're getting at. You seem to be annoyed that someone added a link to an ad-laden website, complete with popups and whatnot. That I do understand. I often revert "link spam" being added to articles. But I think you're misplacing the blame or not understanding how articles are edited. None of these changes are approved in any way. The sole blame lies with Gracefool ( talk · contribs) and noone else. He/she made the edit. The fact that the link remained for about two weeks is a mere oversight. It happens. Thankyou for fixing it, now move on. I don't understand why you are making such a huge fuss over it. -- Imroy 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting to have some information about this.
I know that a portion of an IP number carries information about a user/website's geographical location/country of origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.100.230 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, October 4, 2006
The address itself does not carry any such information. IP addresses are assigned by a central authority,
IANA. A certain range may have been assigned to a company in a specific region, and it is possible to look an address up in IANA's database to see approximately where it was assigned to, but the address itself is just a number.
02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"An IP address (Internet Protocol address) is a unique penis that devices use in order to identify" someone fix this plz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.127.191 ( talk • contribs)
"xcxcxc" right at the start - I assume that's not meant to be there. It doesn't appear when editing a page so I can't remove it myself. -- Edvvc 12:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"in simpler terms, a computer address. An IP address can easily be used to enter your computer through a back route, enter your home through the same back route, enter your brain, obviously, kill people, download tickets, illegally bypass blocks, and cause your life to crumble down into a tiny pile of horse crumbs" -- vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landcamera900 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the 'Ray Famechon' you mention as having fought Willie Pep in 1950 was a Frenchman, not an Australian. It is his nephew 'Johnny Famechon' who is Australian, but I believe Johnny fought in the 1960s.
~ Jaimee K Pimentel, Sydney, Australia
(Moved the following entry from a comment on the main page — Krellis 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
Hey guys, attempting to post this link again as a registered user (deleted by Krellis last time). This site is 100% free and ad-free site that definitely doesn't just show "dime a dozen" information about "your IP address." From a single page - you can find out geographic location, ASN/BGP information, route, whois, network peers (using BGP feeds), and a lot more. I believe this is a VERY helpful, "hands on" service for someone wanting to know more about an IP address. If you still feel this isn't relevant and is removed, I will not post again. Thanks, -Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshSkidmore ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 December 2006
(De-indenting for easier reading...) You certainly can start such a page, but I'm not sure it's really appropriate for Wikipedia - see WP:NOT for a list of what Wikipedia is not intended to be, including "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (section 1.5 of that page). Lists of this type already exist, particularly in the form of Google Directory. In particular, the DNS -> Web Tools category seems to be similar to what you're suggesting, as is IP -> Addressing -> Lookup. Perhaps you would be better served by using the links at the bottom of those pages to help build them up (particularly the latter, which is somewhat empty), and then linking to THEM from here on Wikipedia, as links to relevant web directory categories are generally considered acceptable under WP:EL. I don't really think it's about politics, as you put it, as much as it is about making sure Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, and that means taking steps to ensure it doesn't become a cluttered mess of links. I understand that it may not seem that way to you, but I hope my suggestions here have made it a little bit more clear and easier for you to understand. — Krellis 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
check ip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.171.68.160 ( talk) 11:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I edited the page to remove some useless information. I simply reverted (I guess, Im new at this) the page back to a previous state. I did that without logging in so I just wanted to sign this and let you know what I was doing. Thanks. Illumini85 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the bit on IPv5 being experimental and referring to UNIX numbering conventions is lifted almost verbatim from whatismyip.com (near the bottom of the page). There is also an external link at the end of the article (also possibly shouldn't be there, per other discussions) to a whatismyip clone (ip.cyarena.com), containing the same text.
On neither website is there an obvious claim of copyright that I can see, but does this automatically allow us to copy from the website? JoeKearney 09:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Should this article be protected? Since I started watching it I've noticed a large amount of vandalism, and there don't seem to have been any constructive edits for a long time, so I don't think it will hurt. Since it's linked from vandalism warnings etc it's an easy target, and without protection a sitting duck. Richard001 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone knew the signifigance of each of the four divisions in an IP address. I only know that the first six numbers seem to stay the same for a general location, like an office. I think the article should have this information. Redneck Physicist 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that this entire section should be removed completely. An IP is an IP is an IP...doesn't matter where it came from. This is like saying there are two types of cars: the kind you buy or the kind you lease.
Additionally, this stub is misleading and inaccurate. For example, a static address can also be obtained via a DHCP server, not just dynamic addresses (ie reservations). This sentence: "With a static IP address, a computer's identity can be easily identified by others, and users can easily connect with it" implies that a dynamic address is difficult to identify or connect with...not true This is what DNS and dynamic DNS were created for... 71.196.245.252 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am proposing to keep the section and I also propose (and welcome revisions to) the following:
begin proposed changes ------------------------------
There are two classifications for the allocation and assignment of IP addresses: static or dynamic. A 'Static' IP address is generally assigned by a person responsible for the network but a simple user can also assign a ‘Static’ IP address. 'Static' IP addresses generally do not change once assigned and are generally assigned to permanent devices connected to a Local or Wide area network such as web and mail servers where a large group of users access that network device.
Contrast the manual or ‘Static’ assignment of IP addresses with the “Dynamic” method where the addresses are assigned automatically by a special protocol running on a host computer or router; that protocol is DHCP, which is an abbreviation for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. An example of automatic assignment via DHCP could be: a person takes a laptop to a wireless zone at a coffee shop, the settings for IP protocol on that laptop are set to ‘obtain an IP address automatically’ – the laptop broadcasts a DHCP request over the wireless network and if a DCHP server is found then an IP address is assigned to the laptop for a predetermined period of time – this is ‘lease’ period and this duration may range from minutes to infinity as pre-defined by a network administrator for that network. Dynamically assigned IP addresses are the preferred method of assignment as the DCHP program does the majority of the accounting and administration thus ensuring that no duplicate IP addresses are assigned on the network
end proposed changes -------------------------------
Internet Service Providers charge extra for static IP addresses. Why would I want to pay extra for a static IP address? What can I do with a static IP address that I cannot do with a dynamically-assigned IP address? Csnewman 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please check the Class C private IP range example in the article It is given as shown below: C 256 = 28 192.168.0.0 192.168.255.255 But i feel the end address should be 192.168.0.255. Am i wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.89.10 ( talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
in the article is written "Static IP addresses are manually assigned to a computer by an administrator, either through the operating system configuration or through a command (e.g. ipconfig or ifconfig)" I think is wrong. As far as I know ipconfig is used to display the ip configuration (as is written in the related article). -- Dia^ ( talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way all what can be dame with an ipconfig is:
USAGE:
ipconfig [/? | /all | /renew [adapter] | /release [adapter] | /flushdns | /displaydns | /registerdns | /showclassid adapter | /setclassid adapter [classid] ]
where
adapter Connection name (wildcard characters * and ? allowed, see examples)
Options: /? Display this help message /all Display full configuration information. /release Release the IP address for the specified adapter. /renew Renew the IP address for the specified adapter. /flushdns Purges the DNS Resolver cache. /registerdns Refreshes all DHCP leases and re-registers DNS names /displaydns Display the contents of the DNS Resolver Cache. /showclassid Displays all the dhcp class IDs allowed for adapter. /setclassid Modifies the dhcp class id.
The default is to display only the IP address, subnet mask and default gateway for each adapter bound to TCP/IP.
For Release and Renew, if no adapter name is specified, then the IP address leases for all adapters bound to TCP/IP will be released or renewed.
For Setclassid, if no ClassId is specified, then the ClassId is removed.
Examples:
> ipconfig ... Show information. > ipconfig /all ... Show detailed information > ipconfig /renew ... renew all adapters > ipconfig /renew EL* ... renew any connection that has its name starting with EL > ipconfig /release *Con* ... release all matching connections, eg. "Local Area Connection 1" or "Local Area Connection 2"
-- Dia^ ( talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved the section "IPv4 Specifics" into the "IP version 4" section. I tried to keep most of it, but this is ridiculous. This article is for IP Addresses. If you want to add information on networking, subnetting, IP blocking, NAT, or any other IP-related subjects, those topics are usually important enough that they have their own articles. Please try not to clutter up this article with information that's more relevant elsewhere. Indeterminate ( talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I came to this page to find out what this means, but although the page uses it in a number of places, it never explains what it means! Thanks 131.111.195.8 ( talk) 18:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged and highlighted two unsourced statements in the opening paragraph of the article. I suggest that if ref's cannot be found to back up these statements, then they be removed from the article. Brothejr ( talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
So I notice most of the page has been rewritten over the past few days (mostly by Kbrose). While I agree with most of the revisions, I do have a few small complaints (and I've made some changes):
In conclusion, I think the introduction (and much of the rest of the article) is still too technical for a general audience. If you guys disagree, let's discuss it here! :) Indeterminate ( talk) 12:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the intro should be sufficient to be used as a stand-alone definition of the topic, so that if someone does not want to read the whole thing, they have a good representation of the topic, in that sense I think the intro isn't too long as it stands. It shouldn't be so short and abstract that it provides no meaning full insight or satisfaction even for a knowledgeable reader, and technical content shouldn't be too diluted, it is a very technical subject after all. I think the changes made to my version do make it more concise, less verbose and are an improvement. I think there is more that can be done, but I don't see that it could get shorter or less technical. Google provides enough simple-minded answers already. No need to come here. My revision was intended as a first iteration.
I added the routing paragraph for one reason: People constantly ask (me and elsewhere) what the CIDR (/16) designation means ("haven't seen that kind of IP address before"), and it may well be the single reason a lot of people look. That's the reason I added the paragraph on routing, to be able to clear up that issue as early as possible in the article. You removed the most important part of that paragraph, I think. Without the example CIDR notation, the routing paragraph might as well be shortened radically, since routing has its own page. I would like to reintroduce the CIDR notation in that paragraph, but in a very succinct manner.
Regarding the "primary network layer" phrase, it was intended to be understood to indicate that IP is the *PRIMARY* layer that deals with IP addresses, as many layers in the protocol suite do deal with them of course. But the layer that introduces them to the stack is IP. Some people think that the network layer consists of multiple layers itself, I intended to used the term more independently. It wasn't very clear afterall, I agree now. I don't want to get into the layers debate, I am just glad the TCP/IP layer template isn't attached to this article as well.
It is true that there just aren't good definitive references for the concept of uniqueness of addresses. It seems people keep adding stuff on uniqueness of addresses, there was another one overnight. It was in the first sentence of the old intro. The topic was good for the new paragraph as it leads into private networks. The concept of uniqueness can't really be attached to the general term IP address, since every IP device has 127.1 localhost address. IPv6 addresses certainly can't be defined as unique even on the same network, but in the case of IPv4 it does need to be unique on the same wire. That's why I tried to phrased it the way I did, since ARPANET back then wasn't very subnetted, and the concept of uniqueness was somehow implied if only simply in the process of downloading the host table and installing it on your host. I struggled with the topic at the beginning of that paragraph very much, and I still wanted to add better handling of it. I like your addition of mentioning NAT at that point, good to link to that article from here.
The rest of the article is still in need of overhaul, IHMO. Kbrose ( talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you're right about the length of the intro. At least, I can't decide what to get rid of. I just look at articles like Binary numeral system, and the tiny introduction lets me just glance at the table of contents and skip to the section I'm interested in. *sigh* Anyway, I do really like that quote from RFC 791. It might be the best part of this article.
I agree about CIDR notation, too. I know it's confusing to a lot of people. I added it back in; if you want to reword it, feel free. I've also been thinking about adding a short section above IP versions to mention the different notations used for IP addresses: dotted decimal, hexadecimal, binary, IPv6, as well as CIDR and ip/netmask pairs. Maybe I'll try making an image which has one example of each. Can you think of any other, uh, notable notations we should mention?
Yeah, the layers stuff is a mess. I watch Internet protocol suite too, and despite the fact that everyone agrees that the TCP/IP layer model template shouldn't have 5 layers, nobody's changed it. People are very opinionated about some strange things.
Mentioning uniqueness is tricky. Like you said, they only implied that addresses should be unique on a network in the old RFCs. And especially if you take IP address spoofing into account, it's obviously possible to have addresses that aren't unique on the same wire (although presumably not intended by the protocol spec). Loopback is an interesting case, too.
There are definitely some changes I'd like to see happen in this article. Most of this article is unfortunately just a collection of brief descriptions of other main articles (IPv4#Addressing, IPv6#Addressing, Subnetworks, Private networks, NAT, etc.). But I don't think there's really anything we can do about those, aside from cleaning up the text. The only section that seems to be unique to this article is just the static/dynamic addresses section. Like I said, I'd like to write a section on notation, and we should probably mention Loopback/localhost addresses, network addresses (.0), and broadcast addresses somewhere, since they are special. Anything else you can think of that's obviously missing?
Anyway, thanks for responding. I'm glad you're helping out here. Indeterminate ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
RE RE RE: Thanks for putting the CIDR back in. I'll think more about further changes. RE address spoofing: of course it's always possible to put anything that fits in an IP packet, but you can't count that against uniqueness of network interfaces addresses on the wire. cheers Kbrose ( talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good Work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.43.61 ( talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I changed the intro making it very simple and clear. 0waldo 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Wow! I suppose that I was totally wrong about that one! 0waldo 15:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
A comparable analogy to an IP address is a telephone number. On a telephone network, the phone numbers must be unique. Generally speaking, each location has one phone number that allows anyone to dial that phone directly by using their unique phone number. Likewise, a computer is assigned a unique IP address which let's any other computer to connect directly to it by using their unique IP address. In reality, it is possible for a location to have multiple phone numbers (perhaps primarily larger businesses) and a computer can also be assigned multiple IP addresses which is pretty cool.
V.S.
A computer’s IP address is very much like a telephone number; they are both unique and allow communications with local or remote network devices. Much like a multi-line telephone, a network device may have multiple IP addresses assigned to it.
I think the latter is better suited but what do I know, anyhow? 0waldo 15:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Local and long distance call makes no sense? What about LAN vs. WAN connection? 0waldo 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cburnett: I made new and improved changes... Thanks 0waldo 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Cburnett: I really liked your last edit; the concept that is, and I made some minor changes that I feel will enable the reader to better understand the basic concept of an IP address via minor syntax changes. 0waldo 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cburnett: I removed the "colloquial usage" line. 0waldo 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be important to list the differences in a Static IP address vs a Dynamic IP address. If I were able to, I would. Can an expert out there add this please?
I see no reason to merge into Internet Protocol. Cburnett 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cburnett; keep this individual page without merge. 0waldo 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to present in the article from what I can surmize. Perhaps there can be an inclusion of this somewhere. - Zero Talk 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Most of the dial up service providers provide DHCP. Even individual cable line providers can also assign DHCP to their clients. Some ISPs assign static IP to clients on request or on the pay of additional cost. Kumarsarma ( talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are client of local internet cable service provider, you need DSL or ADSL routers that can be provided by your ISP and static IP can be assigned to it. Kumarsarma ( talk) 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel that some editor abuse again wikipedia!? What is so special about http://whatismyipaddress.com/ to be allowed above all other websites that are much much better. Furthermore site have not only static advert but also a couple annoying advvertisement (as pop-up that jump every time when you visit site, then annoying blending and scrolling advert in middle of screan etc...) Arrrggg......... Only reason could be that some of wikipedia editor use his power and simple allow his own site. Here was a discussion about years a go and that time everybody agree to remove any single ip address displaying site except articles about tcp/ip protocols on well known sites. Hmmm........ Looks to me as abusing of power again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graciella ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
The website specified by you may not show accurate results in look up and tracing if your connection is DHCP client or connected to Proxy server. I believe that members who posted information in this page didn't explain clearly about static IPs, DHCP and proxy connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not have personally problems with popups but have problem that someone post link to only one site (that has been chosed above all others and have obviosly special status) and generate a huge traffic to that site. In fact the site in question is advert for free on wikipedia and in the same time administrator make his own site ugly with annoying popups and scrolling advert in middle of screen and generate money etc). As first why to place link only to one site with a lot popups and advertisements? The site does not have anything special. Administrator, friend, neighbour or whatever could be reason but visitor friendly, educative and usefull site not for sure... Wikipedia is not place to place advertisement and it was advertisement. Graciella
It's hard to understand what you're getting at. You seem to be annoyed that someone added a link to an ad-laden website, complete with popups and whatnot. That I do understand. I often revert "link spam" being added to articles. But I think you're misplacing the blame or not understanding how articles are edited. None of these changes are approved in any way. The sole blame lies with Gracefool ( talk · contribs) and noone else. He/she made the edit. The fact that the link remained for about two weeks is a mere oversight. It happens. Thankyou for fixing it, now move on. I don't understand why you are making such a huge fuss over it. -- Imroy 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting to have some information about this.
I know that a portion of an IP number carries information about a user/website's geographical location/country of origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.100.230 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, October 4, 2006
The address itself does not carry any such information. IP addresses are assigned by a central authority,
IANA. A certain range may have been assigned to a company in a specific region, and it is possible to look an address up in IANA's database to see approximately where it was assigned to, but the address itself is just a number.
02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"An IP address (Internet Protocol address) is a unique penis that devices use in order to identify" someone fix this plz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.127.191 ( talk • contribs)
"xcxcxc" right at the start - I assume that's not meant to be there. It doesn't appear when editing a page so I can't remove it myself. -- Edvvc 12:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"in simpler terms, a computer address. An IP address can easily be used to enter your computer through a back route, enter your home through the same back route, enter your brain, obviously, kill people, download tickets, illegally bypass blocks, and cause your life to crumble down into a tiny pile of horse crumbs" -- vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landcamera900 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the 'Ray Famechon' you mention as having fought Willie Pep in 1950 was a Frenchman, not an Australian. It is his nephew 'Johnny Famechon' who is Australian, but I believe Johnny fought in the 1960s.
~ Jaimee K Pimentel, Sydney, Australia
(Moved the following entry from a comment on the main page — Krellis 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
Hey guys, attempting to post this link again as a registered user (deleted by Krellis last time). This site is 100% free and ad-free site that definitely doesn't just show "dime a dozen" information about "your IP address." From a single page - you can find out geographic location, ASN/BGP information, route, whois, network peers (using BGP feeds), and a lot more. I believe this is a VERY helpful, "hands on" service for someone wanting to know more about an IP address. If you still feel this isn't relevant and is removed, I will not post again. Thanks, -Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshSkidmore ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 December 2006
(De-indenting for easier reading...) You certainly can start such a page, but I'm not sure it's really appropriate for Wikipedia - see WP:NOT for a list of what Wikipedia is not intended to be, including "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (section 1.5 of that page). Lists of this type already exist, particularly in the form of Google Directory. In particular, the DNS -> Web Tools category seems to be similar to what you're suggesting, as is IP -> Addressing -> Lookup. Perhaps you would be better served by using the links at the bottom of those pages to help build them up (particularly the latter, which is somewhat empty), and then linking to THEM from here on Wikipedia, as links to relevant web directory categories are generally considered acceptable under WP:EL. I don't really think it's about politics, as you put it, as much as it is about making sure Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, and that means taking steps to ensure it doesn't become a cluttered mess of links. I understand that it may not seem that way to you, but I hope my suggestions here have made it a little bit more clear and easier for you to understand. — Krellis 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
check ip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.171.68.160 ( talk) 11:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I edited the page to remove some useless information. I simply reverted (I guess, Im new at this) the page back to a previous state. I did that without logging in so I just wanted to sign this and let you know what I was doing. Thanks. Illumini85 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the bit on IPv5 being experimental and referring to UNIX numbering conventions is lifted almost verbatim from whatismyip.com (near the bottom of the page). There is also an external link at the end of the article (also possibly shouldn't be there, per other discussions) to a whatismyip clone (ip.cyarena.com), containing the same text.
On neither website is there an obvious claim of copyright that I can see, but does this automatically allow us to copy from the website? JoeKearney 09:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Should this article be protected? Since I started watching it I've noticed a large amount of vandalism, and there don't seem to have been any constructive edits for a long time, so I don't think it will hurt. Since it's linked from vandalism warnings etc it's an easy target, and without protection a sitting duck. Richard001 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone knew the signifigance of each of the four divisions in an IP address. I only know that the first six numbers seem to stay the same for a general location, like an office. I think the article should have this information. Redneck Physicist 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that this entire section should be removed completely. An IP is an IP is an IP...doesn't matter where it came from. This is like saying there are two types of cars: the kind you buy or the kind you lease.
Additionally, this stub is misleading and inaccurate. For example, a static address can also be obtained via a DHCP server, not just dynamic addresses (ie reservations). This sentence: "With a static IP address, a computer's identity can be easily identified by others, and users can easily connect with it" implies that a dynamic address is difficult to identify or connect with...not true This is what DNS and dynamic DNS were created for... 71.196.245.252 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am proposing to keep the section and I also propose (and welcome revisions to) the following:
begin proposed changes ------------------------------
There are two classifications for the allocation and assignment of IP addresses: static or dynamic. A 'Static' IP address is generally assigned by a person responsible for the network but a simple user can also assign a ‘Static’ IP address. 'Static' IP addresses generally do not change once assigned and are generally assigned to permanent devices connected to a Local or Wide area network such as web and mail servers where a large group of users access that network device.
Contrast the manual or ‘Static’ assignment of IP addresses with the “Dynamic” method where the addresses are assigned automatically by a special protocol running on a host computer or router; that protocol is DHCP, which is an abbreviation for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. An example of automatic assignment via DHCP could be: a person takes a laptop to a wireless zone at a coffee shop, the settings for IP protocol on that laptop are set to ‘obtain an IP address automatically’ – the laptop broadcasts a DHCP request over the wireless network and if a DCHP server is found then an IP address is assigned to the laptop for a predetermined period of time – this is ‘lease’ period and this duration may range from minutes to infinity as pre-defined by a network administrator for that network. Dynamically assigned IP addresses are the preferred method of assignment as the DCHP program does the majority of the accounting and administration thus ensuring that no duplicate IP addresses are assigned on the network
end proposed changes -------------------------------
Internet Service Providers charge extra for static IP addresses. Why would I want to pay extra for a static IP address? What can I do with a static IP address that I cannot do with a dynamically-assigned IP address? Csnewman 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please check the Class C private IP range example in the article It is given as shown below: C 256 = 28 192.168.0.0 192.168.255.255 But i feel the end address should be 192.168.0.255. Am i wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.89.10 ( talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
in the article is written "Static IP addresses are manually assigned to a computer by an administrator, either through the operating system configuration or through a command (e.g. ipconfig or ifconfig)" I think is wrong. As far as I know ipconfig is used to display the ip configuration (as is written in the related article). -- Dia^ ( talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way all what can be dame with an ipconfig is:
USAGE:
ipconfig [/? | /all | /renew [adapter] | /release [adapter] | /flushdns | /displaydns | /registerdns | /showclassid adapter | /setclassid adapter [classid] ]
where
adapter Connection name (wildcard characters * and ? allowed, see examples)
Options: /? Display this help message /all Display full configuration information. /release Release the IP address for the specified adapter. /renew Renew the IP address for the specified adapter. /flushdns Purges the DNS Resolver cache. /registerdns Refreshes all DHCP leases and re-registers DNS names /displaydns Display the contents of the DNS Resolver Cache. /showclassid Displays all the dhcp class IDs allowed for adapter. /setclassid Modifies the dhcp class id.
The default is to display only the IP address, subnet mask and default gateway for each adapter bound to TCP/IP.
For Release and Renew, if no adapter name is specified, then the IP address leases for all adapters bound to TCP/IP will be released or renewed.
For Setclassid, if no ClassId is specified, then the ClassId is removed.
Examples:
> ipconfig ... Show information. > ipconfig /all ... Show detailed information > ipconfig /renew ... renew all adapters > ipconfig /renew EL* ... renew any connection that has its name starting with EL > ipconfig /release *Con* ... release all matching connections, eg. "Local Area Connection 1" or "Local Area Connection 2"
-- Dia^ ( talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved the section "IPv4 Specifics" into the "IP version 4" section. I tried to keep most of it, but this is ridiculous. This article is for IP Addresses. If you want to add information on networking, subnetting, IP blocking, NAT, or any other IP-related subjects, those topics are usually important enough that they have their own articles. Please try not to clutter up this article with information that's more relevant elsewhere. Indeterminate ( talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I came to this page to find out what this means, but although the page uses it in a number of places, it never explains what it means! Thanks 131.111.195.8 ( talk) 18:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged and highlighted two unsourced statements in the opening paragraph of the article. I suggest that if ref's cannot be found to back up these statements, then they be removed from the article. Brothejr ( talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
So I notice most of the page has been rewritten over the past few days (mostly by Kbrose). While I agree with most of the revisions, I do have a few small complaints (and I've made some changes):
In conclusion, I think the introduction (and much of the rest of the article) is still too technical for a general audience. If you guys disagree, let's discuss it here! :) Indeterminate ( talk) 12:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the intro should be sufficient to be used as a stand-alone definition of the topic, so that if someone does not want to read the whole thing, they have a good representation of the topic, in that sense I think the intro isn't too long as it stands. It shouldn't be so short and abstract that it provides no meaning full insight or satisfaction even for a knowledgeable reader, and technical content shouldn't be too diluted, it is a very technical subject after all. I think the changes made to my version do make it more concise, less verbose and are an improvement. I think there is more that can be done, but I don't see that it could get shorter or less technical. Google provides enough simple-minded answers already. No need to come here. My revision was intended as a first iteration.
I added the routing paragraph for one reason: People constantly ask (me and elsewhere) what the CIDR (/16) designation means ("haven't seen that kind of IP address before"), and it may well be the single reason a lot of people look. That's the reason I added the paragraph on routing, to be able to clear up that issue as early as possible in the article. You removed the most important part of that paragraph, I think. Without the example CIDR notation, the routing paragraph might as well be shortened radically, since routing has its own page. I would like to reintroduce the CIDR notation in that paragraph, but in a very succinct manner.
Regarding the "primary network layer" phrase, it was intended to be understood to indicate that IP is the *PRIMARY* layer that deals with IP addresses, as many layers in the protocol suite do deal with them of course. But the layer that introduces them to the stack is IP. Some people think that the network layer consists of multiple layers itself, I intended to used the term more independently. It wasn't very clear afterall, I agree now. I don't want to get into the layers debate, I am just glad the TCP/IP layer template isn't attached to this article as well.
It is true that there just aren't good definitive references for the concept of uniqueness of addresses. It seems people keep adding stuff on uniqueness of addresses, there was another one overnight. It was in the first sentence of the old intro. The topic was good for the new paragraph as it leads into private networks. The concept of uniqueness can't really be attached to the general term IP address, since every IP device has 127.1 localhost address. IPv6 addresses certainly can't be defined as unique even on the same network, but in the case of IPv4 it does need to be unique on the same wire. That's why I tried to phrased it the way I did, since ARPANET back then wasn't very subnetted, and the concept of uniqueness was somehow implied if only simply in the process of downloading the host table and installing it on your host. I struggled with the topic at the beginning of that paragraph very much, and I still wanted to add better handling of it. I like your addition of mentioning NAT at that point, good to link to that article from here.
The rest of the article is still in need of overhaul, IHMO. Kbrose ( talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you're right about the length of the intro. At least, I can't decide what to get rid of. I just look at articles like Binary numeral system, and the tiny introduction lets me just glance at the table of contents and skip to the section I'm interested in. *sigh* Anyway, I do really like that quote from RFC 791. It might be the best part of this article.
I agree about CIDR notation, too. I know it's confusing to a lot of people. I added it back in; if you want to reword it, feel free. I've also been thinking about adding a short section above IP versions to mention the different notations used for IP addresses: dotted decimal, hexadecimal, binary, IPv6, as well as CIDR and ip/netmask pairs. Maybe I'll try making an image which has one example of each. Can you think of any other, uh, notable notations we should mention?
Yeah, the layers stuff is a mess. I watch Internet protocol suite too, and despite the fact that everyone agrees that the TCP/IP layer model template shouldn't have 5 layers, nobody's changed it. People are very opinionated about some strange things.
Mentioning uniqueness is tricky. Like you said, they only implied that addresses should be unique on a network in the old RFCs. And especially if you take IP address spoofing into account, it's obviously possible to have addresses that aren't unique on the same wire (although presumably not intended by the protocol spec). Loopback is an interesting case, too.
There are definitely some changes I'd like to see happen in this article. Most of this article is unfortunately just a collection of brief descriptions of other main articles (IPv4#Addressing, IPv6#Addressing, Subnetworks, Private networks, NAT, etc.). But I don't think there's really anything we can do about those, aside from cleaning up the text. The only section that seems to be unique to this article is just the static/dynamic addresses section. Like I said, I'd like to write a section on notation, and we should probably mention Loopback/localhost addresses, network addresses (.0), and broadcast addresses somewhere, since they are special. Anything else you can think of that's obviously missing?
Anyway, thanks for responding. I'm glad you're helping out here. Indeterminate ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
RE RE RE: Thanks for putting the CIDR back in. I'll think more about further changes. RE address spoofing: of course it's always possible to put anything that fits in an IP packet, but you can't count that against uniqueness of network interfaces addresses on the wire. cheers Kbrose ( talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good Work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.43.61 ( talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)