need full IP address from 'who -R' or 'last -R'

[Matti_Kurkela]

The "pts/??" means the connection had a pseudo-TTY allocated, i.e. it was a real login. FTP connections don't need a pseudo-TTY.

"::ffff:" is an IPv6-compatible way to display an IPv4 address, so whatever program is producing the strange wtmp entries is at least minimally IPv6-capable.

If the cut-off entries appear in fwtmp output too, then the application that produced them has been upgraded to IPv6, but the code that produces the wtmp entry has not been upgraded to support the longer address strings required by IPv6. The length of the string "::ffff:10.0.76." is *exactly* the same as the maximum-length IPv4 address, i.e. "nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn". So whatever the program is, it defines a string field or buffer that is too short for its current use. This is clearly a bug.

In HP-UX 11.11, HP begun to introduce IPv6 functionality into HP-UX. The ITRC.hp.com patch database indicates the patches for 11.11 telnetd and r-commands services include some IPv6-related fixes... but there are no specific details about all the problems fixed. As it sounds like your boxes are strictly "vendor-warranty-locked", I guess they are not exactly up to date with patches either, right?

MK

[Borealis]

Matti,
Your answer sounds like it is right on the mark. I and my fellow admins here at the office were beginning to think in the same direction. Many of the boxes that we tested from also produced the "::ffff: we saw from previous vendor and customer connections. The of these test boxes that were used as remotes, all are IPv6 aware, even if they don't specifically use IPv6.

As you guessed, the cut-off entries also appeared in the fwtmp output. Your thoughts that the HP/UX 11.11 server is not patched to current levels is also correct. The vendor is amazingly slow to patch these servers. Patching essentially amounts to a $$$ paid upgrade. And as an annoying "aside", the vendor's approach to security is laughable. Any efforts on our side to tighten it up on the server level run the risk of voiding the warranty. ...but I'm beginning to vent and I need to get back on task.

Short of stumbling across some magic solution with wtmp, I think I will need to rethink my approach and find another way of accommodating the customer's request.

Thanks again to those that have offered input to this problem!

[Borealis]

The assistance from the forum members was very helpful. The provided knowledge helped me to identify that my approach was not optimal for solving the problem at hand, so I am revising my plans and will solve the problem another way.