 ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA |
ropeguru
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 9:26 am
Just shows...That no matter how big they are they still do not know how to setup a redundant infrastructure. |
|
| |
said by ropeguru:That no matter how big they are they still do not know how to setup a redundant infrastructure.
I think it's more that they don't know how to setup a redundant infrastructure that doesn't cost money. |
|
 trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 9:44 am
Sadly, AT&T has been rather allergic to spending money. They have a bad tendency to only spend it when they absolutely need it. This is more on the wireline side.
The wireless side is another thing all together different. They've been spending a crap ton of cash on their wireless network as of late. |
|
| |
I suspect it was widespread power outage failure in their data centers.
And since U-verse is mostly for customers, not business this might be also true as well that they don't consider it to be a critical application.
But what makes me wonder is why it took it more than 1 day. |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:That no matter how big they are they still do not know how to setup a redundant infrastructure.
More like they don't know how to successfully backoff a failed server software upgrade quickly. |
|
| |
to chgo_man99
said by chgo_man99:And since U-verse is mostly for customers, not business this might be also true as well that they don't consider it to be a critical application.
I have 3 clients on "business-class AT&T DSL" (oxymoron I know) that have been effected by this outage. Luckily for them, the unplug and wait 10 minutes trick has been getting the connection back up for a few hours at a time. But all 3 offices were still having trouble this morning. |
|
| |
DSL and U-verse are NOT the same thing, not even close. So I can assure you that your "business-class DSL" clients were NOT effected by the U-verse outage |
|
| |
"an AT&T DHCP server decided it had other aspirations"OK. I thought the way that was phrased was quite funny.
Out of curiosity, how did a single DHCP server cause a three-day outage? It cannot be that simple else an admin could have just grabbed another system and converted it into a backup DHCP server in less than three days. |
|
| |
to trparky
Re: Just shows...said by trparky:Sadly, AT&T has been rather allergic to spending money. They have a bad tendency to only spend it when they absolutely need it. This is more on the wireline side.
The wireless side is another thing all together different. They've been spending a crap ton of cash on their wireless network as of late.
Actually - wireless falls into that same category. AT&T has always been a day late / dollar short to the party, playing second fiddle with spectrum, deployments to Verizon Wireless. They do have to spend to compete... they're just VERY conservative to the point of pi$$ing off their customers at it. pew-Verse/POTS/ADSL - its a lot more 'old school' brick and mortar business footprint.. only innovation that can occur is to merge services (triple play), add more functionality to TV, and charge for overages. |
|
| |
to ChampMom
said by ChampMom:DSL and U-verse are NOT the same thing, not even close. So I can assure you that your "business-class DSL" clients were NOT effected by the U-verse outage
Different lines at the customer end, but around here they both use the same DHCP servers. And that is where the issue seems to be in this area. |
|
| |
Going with possibly it is, wont know till I get homeLets see if it is fixed...
Opened SOCKS tunnel to router behind 2wire modem/router/shit,
Nope, still see MTU 576 in the modem,
Issued a remote reboot,
It comes back, grabbed an ip and MTU says 1500, so I guess it is. |
|
| |
to Boilermaker
Re: "an AT&T DHCP server decided it had other aspirations&qOne completely unsubstantiated rumor says the true cause is that AT&T ran out of IPV4 addresses and that borked the system. Did AT&T buy any blocks of addresses in the past few days? |
|
| |
to FFH5
Re: Just shows...Its most likely run in corporate silo/tower mode.
Team A is responsible for the app
Team B is responsible for the server/OS
Team C is responsible for engineering
Team D is responsible for changes
Team E is responsible for network
....
....
Team C pushes a change to Team D, but does not include Team A in what the changes do/mean (they just support stop/start/error trapping, and are app admins)
After the 'change', something goes wrong. Everyone points fingers at team A. In typical fashion 'what changed' occurs, and a backout starts. That's where things get interesting... and all the time is spent, as you have to get the other teams involved, and they are probably offshore, and do not work nights/weekends. |
|
| |
Wireless is now out in some areasIt would appear that wireless is now out in western Missouri and parts of Kansas. Get one service up and take down another. |
|
 Tobester
join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA |
to ChampMom
Re: Just shows...said by ChampMom:DSL and U-verse are NOT the same thing, not even close. So I can assure you that your "business-class DSL" clients were NOT effected by the U-verse outage
Here in San Francisco, AT&T has simply re-branded their old ADSL as the new and improved "U-verse internet." True U-verse, with fiber to remote terminals, is only available in a very small section of the City, due to complaints over the refrigerator size cabinet placement on neighborhood sidewalks. |
|
trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH |
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 2:18 pm
I thought that they are getting rid of their old ADSL network (ATM-based) and moving people over to the new ADSL+ network that's branded as uVerse (IP-based). |
|
|
 Metatron2008You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state |
At&t.Your world. Delivered. By Forrest Gump. |
|
 David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL |
to ChampMom
Re: Just shows...said by ChampMom:DSL and U-verse are NOT the same thing, not even close. So I can assure you that your "business-class DSL" clients were NOT effected by the U-verse outage
+1 I would like to know exactly how a PPPoE ADSL service on completely different equipment ( ATM based) how on earth a uverse Internet outage (IP based service) affected them. That is like trying to convince an apple it's an orange. Sorry the apple will still be an apple. I am all for trying to understand, but what you state is practically impossible since that network is ATM based from you to the ISP connect point. Every Uverse Internet customer is security certificate based DHCP. |
|
| David |
to trparky
They are... it hit Granite City, IL earlier last year. |
|
Tobester
join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA |
to trparky
said by trparky:I thought that they are getting rid of their old ADSL network (ATM-based) and moving people over to the new ADSL+ network that's branded as uVerse (IP-based).
That initially was the stated plan, however, the AT&T CEO is on record as saying U-verse expansion is dead. My point was to expose AT&T's attempt to razzle-dazzle some current ADSL customers into thinking they have U-verse when it simply is a re-branded name change of the old product. (Of course, those would be the unknowledgeable masses who don't read DSLreports.com  ) Since San Francisco is one of the larger remaining cities without significant U-verse, it remains to be seen if they actually perform the installations, even though they have won the right, through the Courts, to install the neighborhood remote terminals. Much of the City has underground utilities, which will be expensive to install fiber, so they might choose instead to focus on improving wireless for a better return on investment. Of course, that leaves San Francisco ripe for picking by our little Bay area ISP gem, Sonic.net  |
|
| |
to Metatron2008
Re: At&t.said by Metatron2008:Your world. Delivered. By Forrest Gump.
I didn't know that the role of "Forrest Gump" was actually played by Randall Stephenson...!!!!!
LOL  |
|
| |
to David
Re: Just shows...said by David:said by ChampMom:DSL and U-verse are NOT the same thing, not even close. So I can assure you that your "business-class DSL" clients were NOT effected by the U-verse outage
+1 I would like to know exactly how a PPPoE ADSL service on completely different equipment ( ATM based) how on earth a uverse Internet outage (IP based service) affected them. AFAIK, the only way to have that happen would be to have AT&T move the three leftover DHCP customer's in old SWBell territory from the DHCP server on the concentrator to the generic one in the Lightspeed network. And, AFAIK, the PPPoE handoff from the concentrator is from the actual concentrator, no DHCP involved. And, if I'm not mistaken, the IP ranges are very different, so you would know if you were on the Lightspeed network versus the ATM network. But, as you stated, the DHCP server in Lightspeed uses certificate based DHCP, so even if one were to be PPPoE or DHCP in SWBell territory using ATM based DSL, you wouldn't have the certificate to receive the IP address because the equipment is set to passthrough to the user, not the device. So, in other words, we got some grade A derp goin' on. |
|
| |
to ChampMom
said by ChampMom:DSL and U-verse are NOT the same thing, not even close. So I can assure you that your "business-class DSL" clients were NOT effected by the U-verse outage
I really didn't mean to start a U-Verse vs DSL tech debate, so let me rephrase my comment: At the exact same time as the U-verse outage, and for the exact same duration, 3 of my clients, all of whom have "business-class AT&T DSL" service at their offices, not U-Verse, experienced the same type of trouble that was being reported by U-Verse customers. |
|
| |
gmak
Anon
2013-Jan-24 7:26 pm
www.uverseusers.comIt appears that AT&T has disabled the "uverseusers.com" site. I was reading all the glowing reviews, and it vaporized during my access.
I guess they just can't take all the comments. |
|
David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 8:27 pm
Small MTU on Uverse? Do this first.Got this from my source. Hey - spread the word, if anyone on Uverse or IPDSLAM complains about a small ~500 MTU, have them reboot their RG/Modem. That should fix it. if it doesn't, caan you let me know?
of course get the BAN and the usual suspects like cpe type and such.
Thanks
-E I told him I would spread the word and comply. If you happen to have this use subject of [SMALL MTU-REBOOTNOFIX] as the subject line in your direct post or email. Will need the following • BAN/Billing account number • CPE type/Model |
|
esteeze
join:2013-01-22
Birmingham, AL |
esteeze
Member
2013-Jan-24 10:28 pm
Reboot of gateway this evening reset MTU to 1500 for me. |
|
| esteeze |
not fixedMore of same issues today. All services down. Rebooted gateway and services again available. |
|
 nplnUs Army
join:2000-07-17
Martinez, CA |
to Tobester
Re: Just shows...Actually you are somewhat right, ATT didn't rebrand the "old". What AT&T has done is installed New DSLAMS in the C.O. That are running on the UVerse network. Thus getting away with calling it UVerse, when in reality its nothing! I wouldn't even call it DSL 2.0. It still all copper from source to destination, distance issues do apply. Only thing it has done is to lighten the ATM network traffic. We call it "fake" UVerse, since true UVerse its supposed to be FTTN or FTTP. Both do exist in SF just very scarcely. Oh and FTTP will more than likely only been seen deploy in the south of Market area.
By the way last i checked ATT got the green light from SF city hall to install 700 VRADS, yup the frige is going up. |
|
·
)
