From: pk on 3 Nov 2009 12:28 Ciccio wrote: > Ok, > > $ eval $(netstat -an | /usr/xpg4/bin/awk -F '\.| +' -v OFS=. '/ > TIME_WAIT/{ > print "LOCALIP="$1,$2,$3,$4 > print "LOCALPORT="$5 > print "REMOTEIP="$6,$7,$8,$9 > print "REMOTEPORT="$10 > }') > > no errors now, but no output either... That is expected. Check the values of the variables, rather.
From: Seebs on 3 Nov 2009 12:28 On 2009-11-03, Ciccio <lserena(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 10.159.244.250.80 10.159.244.250.49198 49152 0 49152 0 > I need to obtain these 4 variables ($LOCALIP $LOCALPORT $REMOTEIP > $REMOTEPORT) to pass to tcpdrop. Okay. How about: > Here is what I came up with - and it works, but is there a better/ > faster/neater way of doing it? D='[0-9]*' IP="$D\.$D\.$D\.$D" EXPR="\\($IP\\)\.\\($D\\) *\\($IP\\)\.\\($D\\)" netstat -an | sed -ne "s/.* $EXPR.*TIME_WAIT/tcpdrop \1 \3 \2 \4/p" You can add a | sh to the end to execute the results, but run it like this first to be sure it's giving you what you want. You could type the expression in literally, too, but I liked this better. -s -- Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Kaz Kylheku on 3 Nov 2009 16:22 On 2009-11-03, Ciccio <lserena(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi List, > > Given the output below, > > $ netstat -an | grep TIME_WAIT > 10.159.244.250.80 10.159.244.250.49198 49152 0 49152 0 > TIME_WAIT Who in their right separates port numbers from the IP address with a dot??? Which OS has this retarded netstat program?
From: Alan Curry on 3 Nov 2009 18:45 In article <20091103132125.598(a)gmail.com>, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 2009-11-03, Ciccio <lserena(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi List, >> >> Given the output below, >> >> $ netstat -an | grep TIME_WAIT >> 10.159.244.250.80 10.159.244.250.49198 49152 0 49152 0 >> TIME_WAIT > >Who in their right separates port numbers from the IP address with a dot??? tcpdump prints them that way, yet still manages to be widely used. -- Alan Curry
From: Dave on 3 Nov 2009 21:45 Ciccio wrote: > #!/bin/bash I would have thought #!/bin/sh would have been an improvement, and write it in a portable way, without the GNUisms. dave
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [tcsh] Screen's ^] inserting junk Next: Parsing GC Log File |