Legend wrote:
> If I have a list of IP addresses, then how can I say that a group of
> them belongs to a particular router and the rest to another? Or is it
> just possible to get the general representation schema for that set of
> IPs? For example, if I have something like:
>
> 192.168.0.2
> 192.168.0.3
> 192.168.0.4
> 192.168.0.5
>
> I want to say that this belongs to 192.168.0.x. But I was in a doubt
> if this would actually work. Any suggestions please?

Well, yes, one: can you rephrase your question so it can be answered
within the limits of networking terminology ?

I have no clue what you think "saying that an IP belongs to a router" means.

A router routes packets; you need to start from there.


J.

Oh... Well I'm not sure how to put this in an accurate way. Ok I'll
try explaining more clearly. If there's a router X, then there has to
be a range in {x.x.x.x, x.x.x.y} in which it handles packets and this
router X certainly has a limit on the number of IP's it can handle (or
route). For instance we can say that it cannot route IP packets which
belong to the range {a.b.c.d, a.b.g.e}... Hope I was able to write
something meaningful.

On Nov 12, 2:22 pm, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> Legend wrote:
> > If I have a list of IP addresses, then how can I say that a group of
> > them belongs to a particular router and the rest to another? Or is it
> > just possible to get the general representation schema for that set of
> > IPs? For example, if I have something like:
>
> > 192.168.0.2
> > 192.168.0.3
> > 192.168.0.4
> > 192.168.0.5
>
> > I want to say that this belongs to 192.168.0.x. But I was in a doubt
> > if this would actually work. Any suggestions please?
>
> Well, yes, one: can you rephrase your question so it can be answered
> within the limits of networking terminology ?
>
> I have no clue what you think "saying that an IP belongs to a router" means.
>
> A router routes packets; you need to start from there.
>
> J.

Or maybe I am looking for Internal IP addresses.. The internal IP
address is an address that belongs to the router as a whole, and not
any particular interface. But I'm not quite sure as to what I want. My
problem is that I have a set of IP addresses and I want to group them
based on some rule. I thought routers would suffice but if you have
something better, please advice...

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <1194897758.940910.236200@o38g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, Legend wrote:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
You are posting from comcast.net, and they have a very good server.

>If I have a list of IP addresses, then how can I say that a group of
>them belongs to a particular router and the rest to another?

By knowing what the router interface address and netmask are for each
interface and each router.

>Or is it just possible to get the general representation schema for
>that set of IPs? For example, if I have something like:
>
>192.168.0.2
>192.168.0.3
>192.168.0.4
>192.168.0.5
>
>I want to say that this belongs to 192.168.0.x. But I was in a doubt
>if this would actually work. Any suggestions please?

First off, you are assuming that the router might be using a network
mask of 255.255.255.0. Maybe it is, or maybe it's using one of twenty
odd others. Start by finding a copy of RFC1878 on the web - you are
using a search engine after all.

1878 Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4. T. Pummill, B. Manning.
December 1995. (Format: TXT=19414 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1860)
(Status: HISTORIC)

A router (or indeed most network interfaces) may be using a mask of
255.255.255.252 on up to perhaps 192.0.0.0. If you look at those
masks in binary, you'll find

255.255.255.252 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1100
192.0.0.0 1100 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000

Now that means that where there is a '1' in the mask, the address bits
have to match. Using the first mask as an example, you had IP addresses
192.168.0.2 through 192.168.0.5 listed. Here's the mask again, and
those four addresses

255.255.255.252 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1100
192.168.0.2 1100 0000 1010 1000 0000 0000 0000 0010
192.168.0.3 1100 0000 1010 1000 0000 0000 0000 0011
192.168.0.4 1100 0000 1010 1000 0000 0000 0000 0100
192.168.0.5 1100 0000 1010 1000 0000 0000 0000 0101
Must match XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX--

And you can see here that 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.3 have all the
needed matching bits, but 192.168.0.4 and 192.168.0.5 don't match the
third bit from the right.

Now, the real question becomes, what are you trying to ask?

You are posting to a Linux newsgroup - you may find it useful to
be reading the overview sections of the "Linux Network Administrator's"
guide, which you can find at the Linux Documentation Project. Go to
http://tldp.org/guides.html and page down about 430 lines.

* The Linux Network Administrator's Guide, Second Edition

version: 1.1
authors: Olaf Kirch and Terry Dawson
last update: March 2000
ISBN: 1-56592-400-2
available formats:
1. HTML (read online)
2. HTML (tarred and gzipped package, 690k)
3. PDF (1.5MB)

you want item 2.

Old guy

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:49:41 +0000, Legend rearranged some electrons to
say:

> Or maybe I am looking for Internal IP addresses.. The internal IP
> address is an address that belongs to the router as a whole, and not any
> particular interface. But I'm not quite sure as to what I want. My
> problem is that I have a set of IP addresses and I want to group them
> based on some rule. I thought routers would suffice but if you have
> something better, please advice...

Perhaps you can describe what you're trying to do in more detail.

On Nov 12, 3:09 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
> reduces the chance of your post being seen.

What?!

> Find a real news server.

Believe it or not, groups.google.com is a real, honest-to-goodness
news server.

> You are posting from comcast.net, and they have a very good server.

And I bet it probably has a web interface just like groups.google.com.

DS

On Nov 12, 1:49 pm, Legend wrote:

> Or maybe I am looking for Internal IP addresses.. The internal IP
> address is an address that belongs to the router as a whole, and not
> any particular interface. But I'm not quite sure as to what I want. My
> problem is that I have a set of IP addresses and I want to group them
> based on some rule. I thought routers would suffice but if you have
> something better, please advice...

It's still almost impossible to understand your question. I understand
that you have a set of IP addresses. I understand that you want to
group them. But it seems like you don't care how you group them.
Obviously, though, you must care or there would be no reason to ask
the question.

What are you going to do with your grouping? How will you handle two
IPs that you decide are part of the same group as opposed to how you
will handle them if they aren't?

We can't help you group them if we don't understand what you think the
members of a group should have in common. I can think of at least
three very different things you could mean. For example, you could
mean they're part of the same physical subnet. You could mean they're
routed as a unit by the service provider. You could mean they're
routed as a unit by other networks. You could mean they're assigned to
the same end user.

DS

David Schwartz writes:
>
>> You are posting from comcast.net, and they have a very good server.
>
> And I bet it probably has a web interface just like groups.google.com.

Possibly, but they also supply a good ol' nntp port, so I can read it
from gnus under emacs and not worry about web interfaces.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <1194914639.963793.189930@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
David Schwartz wrote:

On Nov 12, 3:09 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
>> reduces the chance of your post being seen.
>
>What?!

Yup - one of the advantages of using a real news reader in place of some
web browser is that virtually all of them include a filtering mechanism
called a 'score' or 'kill' file. This functionality allows a user to
eliminate time-wasting posts. You need only look at the Usenet newsgroup
comp.os.linux.misc to see why people might be filtering out posts from
google. Despite an abundance of complaints to abuse@google.com, this
abuse continues, answered only by an auto-reply boiler-plate response
from the ignore.bot at google. The result is people filtering google
posts. Not every person is doing so, but a number of those who are
inclined to be helpful answering posts do.

>> Find a real news server.
>
>Believe it or not, groups.google.com is a real, honest-to-goodness
>news server.

No - it is a website used for searching archived websites. It happens
to include a number of Usenet groups among other groups of related
sites, and you can submit articles that get forwarded to some Usenet
groups, but it certainly does not have an NNTP server listening on
port 119/tcp. Google is a data mining service matching posted questions
with advertisers. I have better things to do with my time and bandwidth.

>> You are posting from comcast.net, and they have a very good server.
>
>And I bet it probably has a web interface just like groups.google.com.

news.comcast.net is actually one of the *.isp.giganews.com servers,
but I've never bothered to try connecting with a browser. They lack
so much capability that has been built into news clients over the
roughly twenty-six years that Usenet has existed (about ten years before
CERN invented the web server, and UIUC brought out 'mosaic').

You can probably drive nails, and cut wood with a common screwdriver,
but I'd rather use a more appropriate tool that is designed for the
job.

Old guy

On Nov 13, 11:54 am, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin)
wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
> article <1194914639.963793.189...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,

> David Schwartz wrote:

> On Nov 12, 3:09 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> >> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
> >> reduces the chance of your post being seen.
>
> >What?!

> Yup - one of the advantages of using a real news reader in place of some
> web browser is that virtually all of them include a filtering mechanism
> called a 'score' or 'kill' file. This functionality allows a user to
> eliminate time-wasting posts. You need only look at the Usenet newsgroup
> comp.os.linux.misc to see why people might be filtering out posts from
> google. Despite an abundance of complaints to ab...@google.com, this
> abuse continues, answered only by an auto-reply boiler-plate response
> from the ignore.bot at google. The result is people filtering google
> posts. Not every person is doing so, but a number of those who are
> inclined to be helpful answering posts do.

This can happen with any server at any site. I'll bet the vast
majority of news server administrators are no more responsive than
google is. The only reason there appears to be more abuse is because
google has more users.

> >> Find a real news server.

> >Believe it or not, groups.google.com is a real, honest-to-goodness
> >news server.

> No - it is a website used for searching archived websites.

Umm, huh? Perhaps you meant archived articles. While this is one of
the things you can do on groups.google.com, it is also a real news
server.

> It happens
> to include a number of Usenet groups among other groups of related
> sites,

Which is what every news server does. Many have local groups as well
as a subset of Usenet groups. In fact, the concept "all Usenet groups"
isn't even well-defined.

> and you can submit articles that get forwarded to some Usenet
> groups,

Just like every other news server.

> but it certainly does not have an NNTP server listening on
> port 119/tcp.

So what? It's not the protocol that makes a news server a news server
but the functionality.

> Google is a data mining service matching posted questions
> with advertisers. I have better things to do with my time and bandwidth.

If you use a commercial ISP, you could probably describe it in
precisely the same terms with precisely the same amount of meaning --
none.

Google is supported by advertising. So what?

> >> You are posting from comcast.net, and they have a very good server.

> >And I bet it probably has a web interface just like groups.google.com.

> news.comcast.net is actually one of the *.isp.giganews.com servers,
> but I've never bothered to try connecting with a browser. They lack
> so much capability that has been built into news clients over the
> roughly twenty-six years that Usenet has existed (about ten years before
> CERN invented the web server, and UIUC brought out 'mosaic').

> You can probably drive nails, and cut wood with a common screwdriver,
> but I'd rather use a more appropriate tool that is designed for the
> job.

You can do almost anything very well with a web browser. That doesn't
mean that everyone does so, of course. The disadvantage do doing these
kinds of things over the web is that you lose client diversity. But a
large number of people would just use a browser anyway.

In any event, none of that is a reason not to use google's news
service. The closest to a legitimate reason you've given is that so
many people use google, there's a good chance there's someone who uses
google who has pissed any given person off. However, if they lump you
in that boat, that's there loss.

You will always face the issue of people who don't want to communicate
with you. I think trying to change yourself to get around their
perverse wishes is self-defeating. Let them lose out from the
consequences of their own decisions.

DS

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <1195007693.736780.34840@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.c om>, David Schwartz
wrote:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

>(Moe Trin) wrote:

>> No - it is a website used for searching archived websites.
>
>Umm, huh? Perhaps you meant archived articles. While this is one of
>the things you can do on groups.google.com, it is also a real news
>server.

You might want to look at RFC0977, RFC1036 and RFC2822.

>Many have local groups as well as a subset of Usenet groups. In fact,
>the concept "all Usenet groups" isn't even well-defined.

Boy, you are missing a lot of concepts. Try figuring out how to locate
stuff posted to the newsgroups news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
or news.lists.misc. On the 15th of each month there is a posting with
the subject "List of Big Eight Newsgroups". As of the last posting,
it listed just 2282 groups, though there have been a half dozen more
created since mid-October. Just eight hierarchies. Everything else,
and the server I'm using here has nearly 109000 in 4288 hierarchies
from "0" (14 groups) to "zzz" (one group) - is carried at the whim of
the local news administrator.

>> but it certainly does not have an NNTP server listening on
>> port 119/tcp.
>
>So what? It's not the protocol that makes a news server a news server
>but the functionality.

Is that like webmasters who test their pages in IE, and if they don't
crash the browser, they must be OK? I suppose they can't read RFCs
such as RFC2616. As I don't have windoze, they don't get my business
either. Actually, if you read those RFCs above, you see that google's
handling of news articles doesn't even comply with RFC0822/2822.

>> Google is a data mining service matching posted questions with
>> advertisers. I have better things to do with my time and bandwidth.
>
>If you use a commercial ISP, you could probably describe it in
>precisely the same terms with precisely the same amount of meaning --
>none.
>
>Google is supported by advertising. So what?

None of the four ISPs I use (one broadband and three dialin) force
feed advertisements. None of the three news servers I have access
to force feed advertisements. Look at your display and see how many
ads are currently displayed. Here, none.

>> You can probably drive nails, and cut wood with a common screwdriver,
>> but I'd rather use a more appropriate tool that is designed for the
>> job.
>
>You can do almost anything very well with a web browser.

Then why does the average "popular" Linux distribution include so many
tools besides the browser? Just looking at the Fedora Project:

3253669888 Mar 15 2007 FC-5-i386-DVD.iso
3525195776 Oct 18 2007 FC-6-i386-DVD.iso
2900602880 May 27 14:42 FC-7-i386-DVD.iso
3424749568 Nov 02 15:05 Fedora-8-i386-DVD.iso

That must be one hell of a large browser with a lot of plugins.

>In any event, none of that is a reason not to use google's news
>service. The closest to a legitimate reason you've given is that so
>many people use google, there's a good chance there's someone who uses
>google who has pissed any given person off. However, if they lump you
>in that boat, that's there loss.

You keep thinking that. In my case (and others like me), the reason
I killfile posts from google (at the moment, I'm only doing so in 6
of the 85 groups I try to scan every day) is continuing abuse. Above,
I mentioned the 'List of Big Eight Newsgroups', and in that post, the
description of comp.os.linux.misc is given as

comp.os.linux.misc Linux-specific topics not covered by other groups.

I don't think sports shoes, cigarette sales, or how to make thousands of
unspecified dollars on-line - I see there are also p*n*s enlargement
pills being advertised there as well - articles are quite Linux specific.
You might notice that this newsgroup doesn't have those articles at the
moment. As soon as it does, I'll drop google here too.

Old guy