dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-05-30 09:44:36: AT&T is handling the migration toward IPv6 by -- shuffling U-Verse users around their IPv4 addresses? Users in our AT&T forum note that the telco has contacted many of them requesting that they make changes to their subnet. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

cowboyro
Premium Member
join:2000-10-11
CT

cowboyro

Premium Member

If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

They would have realized it's about the *INTERNAL* IP/subnet, not the external IP of the gateway.
So instead of having the internal in the 10.0.0.1 - 10.255.255.255 range it will have to be 192.168.x.x. Nothing else...
No, it doesn't affect any gaming, any Skype, any chat... It doesn't change ANYTHING except the local numbering scheme and it only affects those who changed it from the default.
cowboyro

cowboyro to nightshade74

Premium Member

to nightshade74

Re: Non issue

Non-isue period. Internal IP, not external IP. Default is NOT 10.x.x.x.

nightshade74
Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL

2 recommendations

nightshade74 to cowboyro

Premium Member

to cowboyro

Re: If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

said by cowboyro:

They would have realized it's about the *INTERNAL* IP/subnet, not the external IP of the gateway.

"The only plausable reason for restricting 10/8 is the (idiotic) deployment of Carrier Grade NAT" ... Ok so other than CGN why do you think AT&T would care that you're using 10/8?

The logical conclusion is they're wanting to use 10/8 on
the WAN side. Which of course would cause routing
issues if used on a LAN side.

whfsdude
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

whfsdude to Samwoo

Premium Member

to Samwoo

Re: 6RD Tunneling

said by Samwoo:

they still fall into the IPv4 address shortage, because they would still need IPv4 to route the tunnels across their internal network.

If you put the 6rd servers before the CGN NAT gateway, they can use RFC 1918 space for 6rd. Adds complexity but it can be done.

I suspect 6rd was just an emergency sort of thing. New hardware I'm sure will natively support v6 in say a year.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David to cowboyro

Premium Member

to cowboyro

Re: If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

said by cowboyro:

They would have realized it's about the *INTERNAL* IP/subnet, not the external IP of the gateway.
So instead of having the internal in the 10.0.0.1 - 10.255.255.255 range it will have to be 192.168.x.x. Nothing else...
No, it doesn't affect any gaming, any Skype, any chat... It doesn't change ANYTHING except the local numbering scheme and it only affects those who changed it from the default.

Thanks for reading more thoroughly.... we appreciate it.

whfsdude
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC

whfsdude to nightshade74

Premium Member

to nightshade74
said by nightshade74:

The logical conclusion is they're wanting to use 10/8 on
the WAN side. Which of course would cause routing
issues if used on a LAN side.

Which makes a lot of since because it's the largest block of 1918 space.

quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium Member
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI

2 recommendations

quetwo to cowboyro

Premium Member

to cowboyro
Unless you are using a game/chat service/file transfer service that requires you to have a public IP address.

AT&T will be giving out 10.0.0.0/8 address to it's customers, hiding them all behind a few IPs, versus, giving them all public addresses. When you get a 10.0.0.0 address, services from the internet can no longer contact you directly (you can, however start the conversation).

This is similar to being able to call somebody, but if they call you back, they get a busy signal.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

cdru to Smith6612

MVM

to Smith6612

Re: vpn

said by Smith6612:

most of the game consoles complain if you're even behind one NAT.

Huh? I'd venture to guess that almost every game console is behind at least one level of NAT.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

1 recommendation

fuziwuzi to BiggA

Premium Member

to BiggA

Re: CGN is smart

said by BiggA:

CGN is what should have been used instead of IPv6 the world over. It's proven to work, and 95% of customers don't need a public IP, and the ones who do should pay extra.

You really love spending other people's money. You should be a politician, once you get out of your mom's basement.

cowboyro
Premium Member
join:2000-10-11
CT

2 recommendations

cowboyro

Premium Member

Re: If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

It's all speculation until there is an official word.
It can be as simple as not wanting to route the TV part through IPv6 when the time comes and keeping a 10.x.x.x range just for IPTV. Saves a lot on logistics, no need to do extensive testing with the receivers.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to Crookshanks

MVM

to Crookshanks

Re: vpn

said by Crookshanks:

In any case, I'm left wondering how many residential users need the ability to do site-to-site VPNs. I presume you are using such a VPN for business purposes? You could still make it work if you initiated the connection from the end behind NAT; if that doesn't work I doubt AT&T will have any sympathy for you when you tell them you're trying conduct business over your residential connection.

It's not site to site, but I do quiet frequently. I need a file from home I can quickly remote in and grab the file I need. It's not for business use, strictly personal.

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour to kapil

Member

to kapil

Re: LOL

said by kapil:

Knowing AT&T, this doesn't surprise me at all....given two options, AT&T will always pick whichever one is more idiotic.

And cheaper (for them). Witness their solution for broadband services delivery: Essentially DSL on (weak) steroids.
ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC

ke4pym to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks

Re: vpn

said by Crookshanks:

I presume you are using such a VPN for business purposes?

if by business purposes you mean me supporting my parent's computers and keeping a remote server to copy data too business, then, sure. We could call it business purposes.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
ARRIS ONT1000GJ4
EnGenius EAP1250

1 recommendation

rchandra to BiggA

Premium Member

to BiggA

Re: CGN is smart

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you work for an outfit like Microsoft...patch on top of a patch on top of a fix on top of another patch...all in the name of not disturing older APIs and such.

I think we have hashed this over before. I think of sorts like you as those who would rather put your head in the sand than just man up and transition. Like it or not, IPv6 is the future. We may take several steps before arriving there, but the sooner we all readjust to using IPv6, the sooner it will be over, done, and completed. Deploy now. Get the experience. IPv4 is as broken as Microsoft Windows 2000, and it needs to be retired. (Actually it'd probably be a better analogous fit to say "XP" because it is slated to be unsupported in fairly short time in favor of Win7.)

Me, I personally want to see more widespread consumer ATAs which support more than just IPv4 VOIP. Just about everything else I have (which is networked) is at least some level of IPv6 capable.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to cowboyro

Member

to cowboyro

Re: If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

said by cowboyro:

They would have realized it's about the *INTERNAL* IP/subnet, not the external IP of the gateway.
So instead of having the internal in the 10.0.0.1 - 10.255.255.255 range it will have to be 192.168.x.x. Nothing else...
No, it doesn't affect any gaming, any Skype, any chat... It doesn't change ANYTHING except the local numbering scheme and it only affects those who changed it from the default.

Right, they're saying that, if you set the RG to give you 10.x.x.x IP addresses on the LAN side, you have to change that to another range, such as 192.168.x.x.

The question is: Why are they doing this? Obviously, they want the 10.x.x.x range for something else. Someone speculated that they want it for the TV side so they don't have to test their boxes with IPv6, but I don't buy that. If they aren't planning to put everything behind CGN, then why are they offering to sell you an IP for $15/month?

I wonder if they've considered that this is going to break stuff, and I wonder what their solution is. And telling folks to pay $15/month for an IP that they previously didn't have to pay for isn't a solution. It's going to piss folks off.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

Crookshanks to cdru

Member

to cdru

Re: vpn

Well, that's what Dropbox and similar services are for. If you have privacy concerns that's where encryption comes in.

Understand that I'm not defending AT&T here; I'm just shooting down the notion that an inability to VPN into a residential connection is even a consideration for them. If you're that technically inclined I don't understand why you aren't willing to pay the extra few dollars for a static IP address. It makes life easier, allows you to host services you can't host otherwise (I do my own DNS and e-mail, plus I run an NTP server in the NTP pool) and at least with my ISP puts you into a business class service rather than a residential one, which comes with other advantages (better support, no blocked ports, more permissive AUP, etc.)

In the final analysis this was probably inevitable when you consider the snail's pace deployment of IPV6. The other day I was informed by my Time Warner rep that they are now charging new business class customers extra money if they need more than one IP address. Apparently it is becoming harder and harder for them to procure more IP address space. We set up our business class service a little over a year ago and obtained a /27 simply by asking for it. No longer.
Crookshanks

1 recommendation

Crookshanks to bpfremm

Member

to bpfremm

Re: Helping the pirates?

There's no technical reason why an ISP can't log traffic through a NAT gateway. Record the time the connection was initiated along with the port numbers on each end and it would be easy enough to attribute that connection to a specific user. MPAA's investigators would simply need to provide port numbers along with IP addresses.
tired_runner
Premium Member
join:2000-08-25
CT
·Frontier FiberOp..

tired_runner to ke4pym

Premium Member

to ke4pym

Re: vpn

said by ke4pym:


DNS services like dyndns.org are your friend.

Never tried this with an ASA, but on a 1811 I've never been able to bring up a tunnel using a FQDN even if I point both 1811's to a private DNS box with appropriate A records for each side. It only seems to like listing an IP address for a peer under the crypto.

For the typical residential customer who probably runs a Linksys behind their bridge, IPsec VPN access is probably a non-issue.
JTY
join:2004-05-29
Ellensburg, WA

JTY to cdru

Member

to cdru
Most (all) implement UPNP, so they just open the needed ports on your home router.

NOCTech75
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA

NOCTech75 to rchandra

Premium Member

to rchandra

Re: CGN is smart

said by rchandra:

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you work for an outfit like Microsoft...patch on top of a patch on top of a fix on top of another patch...all in the name of not disturing older APIs and such.

Because no other operating system gets patched right?
NOCTech75

NOCTech75

Premium Member

At least they aren't trying to allocate 127.0.0.0/8

Although sometime in the future I'm sure they will try.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105

rchandra to NOCTech75

Premium Member

to NOCTech75

Re: CGN is smart

ummm...yeah, others do, it's just a perception that MS have had so much trouble with their product that it gets updated a lot more frequently than one would ordinarily expect.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

cdru to Crookshanks

MVM

to Crookshanks

Re: vpn

said by Crookshanks:

Well, that's what Dropbox and similar services are for.

I have about 6TB of files on my home server. Drop box isn't an option. Plus keeping files synced between home desktop and drop box would become an issue.

If you have privacy concerns that's where encryption comes in.

Privacy isn't a concern here...just accessing MY data is. And it's not even just data. Applications as well. I'm a web developer, and from time to time I have reasons to need to check to see what a project I'm working on looks like or behaves from outside of our corporate network. Yes this is now a "business" function, but it's still my residential connection.

If you're that technically inclined I don't understand why you aren't willing to pay the extra few dollars for a static IP address.

Frontier 35mbit symmetrical residental FIOS: $56.50
Frontier 35mbit symmetrical business FIOS w/ static IP: $129.99
I would not consider 73.49 a "few extra dollars". Even at just the $15, it's still ridiculous as static IPs aren't necessary.

It makes life easier, allows you to host services you can't host otherwise (I do my own DNS and e-mail, plus I run an NTP server in the NTP pool) and at least with my ISP puts you into a business class service rather than a residential one, which comes with other advantages (better support, no blocked ports, more permissive AUP, etc.)

My service has been rock solid, so support isn't an issue. Ports aren't blocked with the exception of outbound 25, but you can easily relay through their server or free google apps (aka gmail with your own domain name). I can run my own internal DNS and have a free zoneedit dns hosting which is far more reliable and better connected then my single fios line. Not saying that my setup is optimal for everyone...but it suits me. And everything is ran off of a dynamic IP that's updated via my router if/when my DNS changes.

cowboyro
Premium Member
join:2000-10-11
CT

1 recommendation

cowboyro to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch

Re: If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

And telling folks to pay $15/month for an IP that they previously didn't have to pay for isn't a solution. It's going to piss folks off.

Obviously those folks are clueless.
From the article:
quote:
They have told me that for $15/month I can get a private IP address. Maybe that is the key here, getting another $15/month?
He said PRIVATE, not public or static. Ummmm... yeah, very trustworthy.. NOT. You can get 253 such addresses for free...
On the other side it appears that a STATIC IP is available for $15/mo... For those who are not experts a static IP is one that is not subject to change, as opposed to a dynamic IP that may be randomly assigned and changed by the system.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to JTY

MVM

to JTY

Re: vpn

said by JTY:

Most (all) implement UPNP, so they just open the needed ports on your home router.

I'm well aware of UPnP. I was countering Smith6612's assertion that game consoles complain if you're even behind one NAT. Obviously there are solutions to work with the issue in those millions of cases...and those solutions that work for the residential router also can (but not necessarily will) work for ISP NATing devices.
Ryokurin
join:2008-12-05
Atlanta, GA

Ryokurin to Chewyrobbo

Member

to Chewyrobbo

Re: 6RD Tunneling

Comcast said from the jump it was a test. They also plan on dropping 6 to 4 at a later date. Later on they'll try dual stacks and then tunneling IPv4 through IPv6. There's four trials in all and after all of them are completed then they'll decide what solution they are going to use.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to cowboyro

Member

to cowboyro

Re: If anyone bothered to read instead of bashing...

I agree that calling it a private IP would be incorrect, but it would still stand to reason that they may in fact offer a routable IP for a monthly fee. They could try to spin it as some sort of business-class service. They probably hope that, by making it cost $15/month, few will be willing to pay that much for it. That would make sense if they feel that they're running low on public IP addresses.

In any case, why else would they be doing this? If they're going to stop their RG's from handing out addresses in the 10.x.x.x range on the LAN side, there are only two reasons for that: they're either planning to use those addresses on the WAN side, or they want to add another device to the LAN side of the RG that will itself be a router and will use that range on its LAN. Not likely.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC

cramer to tired_runner

Premium Member

to tired_runner

Re: vpn

Correct. Cisco (IOS and ASA) will resolve the address on the spot instead of storing the name and resolving it every time it needs to use it. This is very annoying to people who don't know it does this.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to rchandra

Premium Member

to rchandra

Re: CGN is smart

IPv6 is a conspiracy by Cisco and other networking companies to sell new gear. They will make a lot more money selling all new gear than just adding CGN. I will use IPv4 until I am forced off of it, and then I will use IPv6. My new modem/router will be IPv6 capable, but I will disable IPv6 until the ISP forces me to get IPv6.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks

Re: Helping the pirates?

Exactly. They'll be forced to do what other providers do (in other countries where they really have no more IPv4 addresses)... extensive logging. I don't think anyone has thought about how much work this really is. Or how much it will cost to keep this massive amount of data for the terms they are required by law to keep it.

(I did netflow collection at a Tier3 ISP a decade ago. Compressed, that was nearly 1GB per day. That was in a world of IDSL, SDSL, and T1's. I don't want to think about how much traffic that is today.)
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next