Talk:IP address: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:40, 23 January 2007

Changes to intro

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

"local or remote network devices" makes no sense for telephones. Shorter is not clearer. Cburnett 17:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local and long distance call makes no sense? What about LAN vs. WAN connection? 0waldo 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local and long distance calls are an artificial dichotomy created by phone companies so they can charge for larger network usage. LAN, MAN, CAN, WAN, etc. are also an artificial categorization also for administrative purposes.

Local or remote phone numbers do not make sense and neither does local or remote network devices in IP addresses. The closest is the localhost but that's entirely different.

Like I said, your shorter version is much less clear because you're using incorrect terminology. Cburnett 18:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cburnett: I made new and improved changes... Thanks 0waldo 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: a street address is too complicated. Second: a phone number is too complicated. Third: a book index is too complicated. What's next? My opinion of this is that you really want to dumb down this analogy. Each step you change the example to make it simpler but at the same time to the point of using incorrect terminology. This is getting really tiring.

Explaining a technical concept does not require using grunts, chest beatings, and wall paintings. Cburnett 03:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great, but why do you keep deleting the colloquial usage? Cburnett 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it was not significant; why explain "what an IP address is not" in so many words? Although I do agree with your accurate statement about "IP" being incorrectly used as an abbreviation for "IP address", it is merely not applicable as an introductory item - this is why I clinically deleted it. 0waldo 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cburnett: I removed the "colloquial usage" line. 0waldo 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you might compare "extensions" of telephone numbers with the local resolving of shared IP address in a shared hosting environment. but I have never heard nor can i imagine a telephone proxy - in normal terms a telephone number is a GUID that can be shortened by omiting predefined fallback-prefixes (countrycode+areacode) ... now that i think about it - long distance carriers and predial numbers are proxies... got myself - never mind. --Iancarter 09:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I see no reason to merge into Internet Protocol. Cburnett 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cburnett; keep this individual page without merge. 0waldo 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Ip adresses

How do you check Ip addresses. I know I am not able to, but what is the link that you go to to check them.--66.169.190.116 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this myself. A while ago I received an anonymous nasty email. While I have an idea who may have sent it, it was sent using gmail. I'm of senior age and not terribly computer literate. I checked the properties of the email and also one from the person I thought may have sent it. Numbers did not appear to correspond. Should they have if it was sent from the same computer? Thanks in advance for any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.217.222 (talk • contribs) 13:43 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind users that Wikipedia is not a support board for Gmail. There are many sites that you can use to check IP addresses, such as DNS Stuff. If an e-mail was sent from the same computer, the IP address listed would be the same. — Nathan ^(talk) 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotating IP addresses

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)[reply]

What is so special about whatismy?

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).[reply]

You do realise that we're all editors here on Wikipedia? In this case it seems to be this edit by Gracefool (talk · contribs) which added the whatismyaddress link over two weeks ago. Odd, but he doesn't look like a linkspammer. Anyway, if you have so much trouble with popups, I suggest you switch from using Internet Explorer to view web sites. --Imroy 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you didnt get my point because of your last sentence with suggestion for popups.

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)[reply]

International IP ranges

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.

Vandalism

"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)

Willie Pep

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

Wrong IP

Wikimedia claims my IP Address is 24.121.73.22, but it's not. I went to Command Prompt and typed in "ipconfig" and it said mine is 192.168.0.12. 24.121.73.22 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent External Link Additions

(Moved the following entry from a comment on the main page —Krellis 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't remove the lookupcrap.com link, I removed one to ipphoto.org, but I don't really think either belongs there. Sure, it does show a lot of information about an IP address, but the comment I referenced still applies - there are a million sites out there that provide that kind of information. Additionally, while the name "Lookup Crap" may be kind of amusing, it isn't exactly very polite or professional. I personally do not think it is appropriate, but I'd like to try to open up discussions here and see if there's any consensus. Other thoughts? —Krellis 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krellis, I agree that there are many tools out there similar to the one I've listed. Even though you've decided that the tool is not appropriate for the "IP Address" wikipedia article, I do think that a "hands on" tool similar to this needs to be listed in the "External Links" section of the article. I could almost guarantee (if polled) that 8 out of 10 people that land on this article would love to use a tool to learn more information about an actual IP address. But again, I do understand that this article must get a LOT of spam-like sites that tell about an IP address (surrounded by 400 ads and revenue methods). As for the name - the word "crap" is a word that's in almost everyone's vocabulary, and it though some people would rather not use it, it's not considered a "curse word" and more than likely does not bring offense to anyone. The name will stick, and if you ever need to get back to the site (for whatever reason) in two months, you'll remember the name :). (I have also reverted Graciella's revert since they believed it to be spam since there's no comment.) —JoshSkidmore 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the archive of this talk page, you'll see a number of discussions where, at least from my reading, consensus has already been formed that this type of link should be avoided altogether, to avoid any need for judgment calls of which site(s) are okay vs. which are not. Specifically, note the Vote for "show your IP pages" section. I also note from WHOIS information that lookupcrap.com is owned by one Joshua Skidmore, presumably you - that is something that you really should have mentioned from the outset. Does anyone else want to weigh in on whether or not this site should be included? If I haven't heard anyone who wants to keep it (other than its creator) in a few days, I'm going to go ahead and remove it, and ask that it not be re-added. I'm just not convinced that there's sufficient additional content to make it a valuable addition to the article. —Krellis 19:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krellis, thanks for the heads up on this. I really was very unaware that there is this much politics behind Wikipedia. I'm going to go ahead and remove my link. An idea I was thinking about (and might have been mentioned before): Why not have a new listing article of "IP + Hostname Tools" in which all of the services can be listed? In a straightforward fashion, the community can bluntly list the features of each site (eg: "limited to 10 lookups per day," "does XXX feature not found on other sites," etc). I can understand where a lot of people get annoyed by these links, but at the same time, some of the tools can be very useful to people, and it's a shame this article's editing community has decided to remove all links altogether. I can start this page? —JoshSkidmore 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

I appreciate the comments and I agree with you completely. I didn't mean for the comment about Wikipedia being all about politics to be taken with a negative connotation, but the history pages do have a lot of people similar to me posting links and then arguing with editors on why or why they shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia. I am also sorry that it may appear that I'm just trying to use this as a means to promote my site, but a lot of the reason I created it was to "extend" knowledge about the core aspects of the internet (often listed here). I didn't see my site as spam, but I can definitely see how adding the site to "External Links" on articles can be seen as that. Bottom line here is that I am new to editing Wikipedia, and I should have be a little more cautious. Hopefully I help by contributing content where it's needed. Thanks again! —JoshSkidmore 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check ip

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 : I appreciate the comments and I agree with you completely. I didn't mean for the comment about Wikipedia being all about politics to be taken with a negative connotation, but the history pages do have a lot of people similar to me posting links and then arguing with editors on why or why they shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia. I am also sorry that it may appear that I'm just trying to use this as a means to promote my site, but a lot of the reason I created it was to "extend" knowledge about the core aspects of the internet (often listed here). I didn't see my site as spam, but I can definitely see how adding the site to "External Links" on articles can be seen as that. Bottom line here is that I am new to editing Wikipedia, and I should have be a little more cautious. Hopefully I help by contributing content where it's needed. Thanks again! —[[User:JoshSkidmore|JoshSkidmore]] 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
+== check ip ==
+check ip