Talk:IP address

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.87.151 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

in the table 'Historical classful network architecture' the 'leading bits' part would look better in a format: 0??????? (and this is wrong: 000????? <-- add this as a comment to the table because after I've first) 10?????? (and this is wrong: 100????? read the article, I've made this mistake before reading the) 110????? table. I've made a mistake because of the misleading description above the table (first 3 leading bits). First 3 leading bits != not always 3 of them (sometimes one). More than that, I'd add something like: so the number (for the A class network) looked like: 0+ {0; 127}. There were 128 networks available within the class. For B class: 128+{0;63} , for C class 192+{0;31}. See this article source code as I don't know how wikipedia formats text.

As i see, there is not any ip showing sites like : http://www.ip-goster.net/ e.t.c. in external links.

Did you decided not to put this kind of sites in Ip Adress page ? ıf it isn't there is a lot of sites like that in multi language. I think it would be helpful to viewing users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.20.11 (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 31, 2007

Only Class A can connect to internet?

werwe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.133.62 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

In the image showing the IPv6 example the "2001" part should be shown as "0010000000000001". In the image the leading zeros are missing and this can cause confusion for those who convert left to right, as well as being inconsistent with the other parts of the address where the leading zeros are included.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.45.75 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In the table titled "Historical classful network architecture" I believe the last (7th) column heading is misleading. As the context of the article is address classes and the first column heading is "Class," the heading "Number of addresses" could easily be misinterpreted as meaning the total number of addresses in the address class. I propose that this heading be changed to "Number of addresses per network." Coming right after column 6, "Number of networks," I believe that this will be more understandable.

I don't have edit rights to this page so I will have to request that someone who does make this change.

Thank you,

TechMaker (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done --Kvng (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

IP Addresses and Geography

There ought to be some mention about how IP Address ranges are associated with geography.Jonny Quick (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Not everyone comes to read a server manual

Need a bit of "for dummies" too.

How about a simple explanation of what the number groups in the dot-decimal notation (that most average people see and make changes to upon occasion), and, for instance, why they always begin with "192". If it's in the page or links, it's too far buried in network-admin-speak for anyone who wouldn't already know the answer to ever stumble across it.

Not an uncommon issue on a wiki tech page. People are too eager to show how smart they are and forget to instruct and be helpful. Not trying to insult. If I was writing an article to convey knowledge from my "wheelhouse", I'd want to hurry and get to the good part as well. But it would be far more helpful to lay out some basics first.

G

RFC 1917 (JFGI) is why they begin "192.168." This warrants addition to the article.

There should probably be a better explanation of modern "/24" placed before the historical "Class C" Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)