Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
ifconfig gives me great information about my LAN but not my WAN. I am behind a router that I have no access to (This is an ISP managed router). I can only see the gateway IP.
Here's what I came up with....
I use curl to query whatsmyipaddress.com and then grep out whois. It works ok...
Why does that matter? The 'dig' line from JHServices is the only one that works cleanly and returns nothing but the public ip address. It helped me.
This is a topic as old as the internet itself. It has been solved literally hundreds of different ways, almost all of which can be found with a 5 second search on ANY search engine or this forum or any other Linux forum.
Throwing out a suggestion in an active discussion is one thing, but resurrecting a decade-old thread to provide yet another solution to something that has been solved a hundred times before is just a waste of time and bandwidth.
I'm glad it solved your problem, but if that post wasn't here, you would have found an equally useful solution in the very next link on whatever search brought you here (the other link probably would have been the first anyway, if this thread hadn't been resurrected).
Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 09-30-2015 at 10:14 AM.
This is a topic as old as the internet itself. It has been solved literally hundreds of different ways, almost all of which can be found with a 5 second search on ANY search engine or this forum or any other Linux forum.
Throwing out a suggestion in an active discussion is one thing, but resurrecting a decade-old thread to provide yet another solution to something that has been solved a hundred times before is just a waste of time and bandwidth.
I'm glad it solved your problem, but if that post wasn't here, you would have found an equally useful solution in the very next link on whatever search brought you here (the other link probably would have been the first anyway, if this thread hadn't been resurrected).
I don't know, I think people get too concerned about thread dates sometimes, I hardly look at them myself, but obviously old threads can still be found since the guy managed to find (and answer) this one at the ripe old age of 9. Now it at least has a decent answer, so great. I looked at a few other pages before this one, and I didn't find anything as easy as the dig line. The waste of time and bandwidth stuff is a side issue that seems pretty negligible to me (aren't we wasting time and bandwidth even talking about it? )
Last edited by drgibbon; 09-30-2015 at 09:08 PM.
Reason: edit
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.