how-to block ads
|
CJ Texas
@swbell.net
| U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem I had static IP's for the last 6 months or so working with out a glitch. In fact I had 3 static IP's (all static on the server, 2 of them alias) assigned to a single nic in a Linux machine. Then last week all stop working. I have been working with U-Verse Static IP support group for over a week to no avail: First got told they do not support IP aliases and that I needed a single NIC per IP on the server: I complied, then I was told multiple NIC's on a single PC are not supported. ALl along they tell me I must assign IP unsing DHCP and then move them to static. The eventually the IP's show up as static in the RG although they are really DHCP and of course I can not see my server from the outside eventhough I can ping the Internet from the server.
Does anyone now how to setup the RG so that it actually routes the Static IP block into my network so I can take care of assigning the IP however I want (static is my preference)?
I am about to cancel just because they can get it to work but if it did before why can't they make it work now? | |
|  bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
clubs:
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by CJ Texas :
Does anyone now how to setup the RG so that it actually routes the Static IP block into my network so I can take care of assigning the IP however I want (static is my preference)? You can't do that, you must do the DHCP dance with the 2wire. It's designed for idiots, but its kind of rediculous for any prosumer use, which static IPs are targeting | |
| 
mmay149q
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
| Hello, my name is Matt, and I'm an AT&T U-Verse Tier II Technical Support Technician, I'm also trained in setting up the static IP blocks, if you would like to private message me your billing account number and a good call back number, I would be more than happy to call you back and help you set this up and explain to you how it all works with U-Verse. Thanks, Matt. | |
| | jcmjr
join:2009-06-20
Mundelein, IL | Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Matt are you still working in Static IP's at u-verse? I could use some help. | |
| x51
join:2009-05-27
Stratford, CT
| Multiple ips on one device will not work.
There is no bridging mode on the rg which is really what you need.
You CAN put multiple ips on one device and outbound they Will work, but you can not allow traffic inbound to each device. The RG only works when it sees seperate mac addresses.
There is no way around it. (that i can find) I've spent many many hours with tech support, I've searched every board that mentions uverse and static ips... I had statics for about 2 weeks and just canceled them since they were not going to meet my needs.
If Matt from tier 2 is somehow able to help you...... PLEASE post back here so the many many others with this issue can fix it. | |
| |
mmay149q
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by x51  :Multiple ips on one device will not work. There is no bridging mode on the rg which is really what you need. You CAN put multiple ips on one device and outbound they Will work, but you can not allow traffic inbound to each device. The RG only works when it sees seperate mac addresses. There is no way around it. (that i can find) I've spent many many hours with tech support, I've searched every board that mentions uverse and static ips... I had statics for about 2 weeks and just canceled them since they were not going to meet my needs. If Matt from tier 2 is somehow able to help you...... PLEASE post back here so the many many others with this issue can fix it. Well bridge mode isn't in the RG yet, but that's not what he was trying to do, and I haven't heard back about if what he tried to do fixed it or not.
--
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -Albert Einstein | |
| | | x51
join:2009-05-27
Stratford, CT
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem hrm.. maybe i misunderstood then..
My understanding included some assumptions.
I assumed since he wants 3 static ips on one nic, he's looking to open ports inbound somehow??
The RG will only see the one device (mac address) and you can only open ports (or use dmz if you wish) for the one device / one ip ... right? The other 2 ips wont show in the list? | |
| | | |
mmay149q
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Well you are right on that, it only see's one mac, but if you hook it up to multiple NIC's then that takes care of the issue. Also if you are going through a switch/firewall, you can just static assign it to the machine, it works that was as well.
--
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -Albert Einstein | |
| | | | |
Darron
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem I've got static IPs, and I'm trying to get more than one IP actually assigned to something.
I -want- to send multiple IPs to the same machine (firewall), but from reading enough posts the 2wire appears to be something of a joke as far as an internet router goes and can't do that. So...
I've got several machines behind a switch, which is connected to the 2wire. The machines are all running linux with static IPs configured.
The 2wire shows two machines (not a third) on the interface. On the "Edit Address Allocations Settings" page, two machines show as "Static IP" on the left side, but the right side shows machine #1 with the correct static IP, but machine #2 is set to WAN IP. If I try to change it to the correct static IP, then I get an error "For the public routed subinterface only WAN IP mapping is allowed.".
How can I get a few more of my static IPs actually attached to something? | |
| | | | | | bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
clubs:
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Did you configure the "Public Routed Subinterface" section on this page?
»192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=J09&THIS···PAGE=J09
If so, you might have the wrong netmask, for a 5 public IP block you need 255.255.255.248 | |
| | | | | | |
Darron
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Weird. Okay, By going to 192.168.1.254/ instead of your direct link, I get a different set of configuration pages. The pages I was looking at (C06) shows the pubic routed interface enabled and configured. The page you gave (J09) shows the public interface as blank.
When I enter the public interface on the J09 page, it refreshes to the status page, but does not show any public interface on that page. When I go back to J09, the public interface is blank again.
Any ideas? | |
| | | | | | | |
Darron
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem The public interface on page J09 never shows, but the detailed log shows something is happening. Here, I changed the route from .6 to .5, cleared the log, then set it back.
INF 2009-06-05T20:27:58-05:00 lmd: ipnet2: DOWN on bridge0:2 with 75.63.108.5
INF 2009-06-05T20:27:58-05:00 lmd: ipnet2: UP on bridge0:2 with 75.63.108.6/29
INF 2009-06-05T20:27:59-05:00 lmd: ipnet2: dns change on bridge0:2 DNS1: 75.63.108.6 DNS2: 0.0.0.0 | |
| | | | | | |
Darron
@sbcglobal.net
| The netmask does show 248, I forgot to mention that.
It's working for one computer, but never more than that. Do they have to be plugged in to different ethernet jacks on the 2wire? they're all on a switch, which is connected to the 2wire on one jack.
I see a weird "Display alert when another router is connected to this router" checkbox on the J09 page... what's that about?
On the C06 page, there is an "Auto firewall open" checkbox, which is cleared. What does that do? ... or should I always use the J pages and not the C pages? | |
| | | | | | | | x51
join:2009-05-27
Stratford, CT
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem quote:
It's working for one computer, but never more than that. Do they have to be plugged in to different ethernet jacks on the 2wire? they're all on a switch, which is connected to the 2wire on one jack.
When you say switch... do you mean a regular switch or a router like a linksys or netgear with a built in switch or something?
If you are using a router, this is your issue.. it wont happen. The router has one public interface and that's all the 2wire will see.
If it's a regular (non routing) switch... then forget all that stuff i just said  | |
| | | | | | | | |
Darron
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem I finally got it (so far, anyway, it works) After connecting and booting up an old laptop off an Ubuntu LiveCD, I disproved my "must be on seperate jacks on the 2wire" theory, and in the process figured out what it really was.
Sorry, I was a little boneheaded. The new NICs were in static IP mode, not DHCP. The 2wire will never 'see' a NIC card in the device list until it requests a DHCP address. That kind of makes sense. It's crappy, but no crappier than the rest of it, really. It works, so for that at least I'm thankful.
The problem was, the second NIC that half-works was once on DHCP, so the 2wire knew about it... but it was no longer, and the 2wire was ignoring it. So, I could try to configure it, but the 2wire wasn't going to let me. (The error message is NO help there) The third and fourth NIC cards that 2wire never saw as DHCP clients of course never showed up at all.
So, I set all 4 (yeah 4 now) of the new NICs to DHCP mode, and then went to the address allocation page and switched them to the IP addresses I wanted them to use.
Here's my question. I'm worried about leaving them as 'fixed' DHCP entries, because the computers may be off for extended periods. Will the 2wire "forget" static IP settings for a computer it hasn't seen in a while?
By the way, they're not physical machines... the new 4 are all in a single VMWare virtual machine in bridge mode. They all have dedicated MAC addresses, and a tcpdump trace on the ethernet wire shows they are talking with unique MACs, so I knew that wasn't it. I didn't want to mention that because I was sure that would throw off the assistance. Once a devices (virtual or otherwise) is talking with a different MAC address, there's absolutely no difference on the physical ethernet layer between that and a physical box. In bridged adapter mode, VMWare acts like a network switch (not router).
Why 4 NICs on a single virtual machine? Because now that PC can route them to where they really need to go. It's an ugly solution for an almost-broken 2wire system.
bclbob and x51, thanks for your help and your time. | |
| | | | | | | | | | x51
join:2009-05-27
Stratford, CT
1 edit | Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by Darron :
Sorry, I was a little boneheaded. The new NICs were in static IP mode, not DHCP. The 2wire will never 'see' a NIC card in the device list until it requests a DHCP address.
It will usually see it eventually if the static is on the same subnet and you generate a lot of taffic. But I've had it take up to 48 hours that way. So DHCP is the ony really usable solution.
said by Darron :
Here's my question. I'm worried about leaving them as 'fixed' DHCP entries, because the computers may be off for extended periods. Will the 2wire "forget" static IP settings for a computer it hasn't seen in a while?
It shouldnt be a problem. With regualar DHCP the lease will expire, but with the Fixed option selected it's not "supposed" to expire. | |
| | | | | | | | | | bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
clubs:
1 edit | said by Darron :
Here's my question. I'm worried about leaving them as 'fixed' DHCP entries, because the computers may be off for extended periods. Will the 2wire "forget" static IP settings for a computer it hasn't seen in a while?
I only have the DMZplus mode which assigns the single router static IP to a chosen device via DHCP and yes, it does forget if the assigned computer doesn't DHCP in a while. the 2wire hands out a 10 minute lease and I seem to reember thats how long it took for the traffic to stop flowing when I configured my router with the static IP and to block DHCP from the Internet (and hence the 2wire).
It might be different for true statics, but I wouldn't bet on it. | |
| | | | | | x51
join:2009-05-27
Stratford, CT | Darron,
I had a lot of trouble with machines not being seen when I statically assigned my ips. Your best bet might to use DHCP, then sticky the publics on the machines you want to have them. | |
| | | | bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
clubs:
| said by x51 :The RG will only see the one device (mac address) and you can only open ports (or use dmz if you wish) for the one device / one ip ... right? The other 2 ips wont show in the list? Not quite, if you have the RG configured correctly for the static IP block there is a page where you can effectively DMZPlus mode multiple static IPs to MAC addresses seen on the LAN side | |
| | |
AnoyedUVerseCust
@sbcglobal.net | Wait, so where you able to assign an Att public IP address to one of your internal devices and bypass the 2wire routing? If so, how did you do this? | |
| satnone
join:2009-07-05
| I also just signed up for this service and I am already quite pissed off. I made a huge effort to ask as many techs as I could if there's anything "funny" about this service, funny being anything other than an ethernet port to the internet that I can use any of my static IPs on. I have been wasting so many hours of my time trying to get my firewall working behind this piece of crap 2wire. did anyone ever figure out how to use IP aliases with this thing? It seems that it will only DMZ according to MAC addresses, so while I can get IP aliases working fine, all of them end up being blocked by their firewall. Using their residential gateway (not sure why a business class account would be given something like this) is not an option for me, so If I cant get my IPs to work correctly and not through some ridiculous DHCP reservations, I'm gonna have to waste even more time switching ISPs again. Cant believe how many hours I spent on the phone to avoid this very thing only to end up in this situation anyways. This is unacceptable for business class internet service - we need real routers... that route...period
Please if anyone has found a solution let me know. | |
| | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem First the RG is a real router but what you really want is just a bridged VDSL Modem. You are not going to get that with U-Verse.
What are you using for a "Firewall"? Do you have a block of Static IPs from U-Verse?
The RG has a very specific way to support multiple static IP addresses. It is not designed to pass a block of IPs to a downstream router.
Second, rather than ranting, tell us about your configuration and the specific issue that you have, you will get a much warmer welcome to the Forum. 
Dave | |
| | | satnone
join:2009-07-05
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem First of all this is Uverse fiber optic service, there is no dsl modem.
Yes I have a block of IPs which I expected and was told I would be able to use the way that anyone would use static IPs. I have a linux based firewall that uses IP aliases. I am not going to use the RG for my firewall just like probably any normal business would not. I was even told by the tech I spent 45 minutes talking to that she doesnt understand why they are giving these RGs to business customers either, because it makes no sense since any business would have their own firewall with their own specific configurations. All I wanted to know was if anyone has yet found a way to use IP aliases with this thing, because I have tried everything and am about to give up. | |
| | | | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Short answer is No, not in a reliable supported way. Many have tried and there are some hacks that claim to work but they are very complex and fail very often due to almost any change on your side of the network due to dynamic route table changes.
Sorry but more bad news. The RG is a 2Wire 3800HGV-B Gateway (based on the 2Wire 2701) and has a built-in VDSL Modem even if you don't use it (if you use the Broadband port). The U-Verse network is not a 100% fibre network. The network backbone is fibre from the VRAD upsteam but the last mile is mostly copper unless you are in one of the rare areas with FTTP. It sounds like you are in the FTTP group based on your comments about just and "ethernet" connection to the internet.
The RG is designed to use OSI Layer 2 and MAC addresses to provide the connection from the U-Verse network to your static IP block. Again, U-Verse does allow you to configure the RG in a bridged mode (transparent routing) or create forward / backward routes. It is designed to own the subnet and it uses an internal capability in the RG to generate the routes between the public segments to reach your static IP block.
Here is the 2Wire support article that provides the best overview of multiple Static IP support: »support.2wire.com/?page=view&article=126
Note: You are running Version 5 firmware on the U-Verse RG so follow that section, sorry the other capabilities don't apply.
This allows you to have both a public static set of IPs and also NAT for any other devices on your network.
Have you even tried to use the RG and it's capabilities? It has a Stateful packet inspection (SPI) Firewall.
Dave | |
| | | | | satnone
join:2009-07-05
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Yes we have FTTP, and only FTTP, or believe me I would still be with DSL Extreme, and I'm sorry but I cant substitute my linux firewall with all of its capabilities and configurations for this 2wire.. not gonna happen. I just got off the phone with another tier 2 tech, and he also agreed with me about this, and said he doesnt understand why business class would be forced to use this 2wire as their firewall either. I spent many hours on the phone and even talked to a couple tier 2 techs before signing up to make sure I didn't have any surprises like this, and none of them bothered to mention this to me. Looks like TW is my only other option now.. and if that doesnt work I guess Ill be looking for another place to live. If I sound anal or picky about any of this, at my work we have well over 300 clients, and not one of them is using a 2wire residential gateway as their firewall. | |
| | | | | | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Sorry that you received poor pre-sales information. It sounds like you need more control over your Internet connection than U-Verse allows today. All U-Verse customers are required to use the 2Wire RG.
I am not sure what your comment about your "work" and over 300 clients and none of them using 2Wire is meant to explain. Unless they have U-Verse then we are compairing "Apples" to "Oranges".
Did you even bother to try to use the RG as designed? You would have been up and running in less then 10 minutes with all of your Static IPs available and configurable using the RG and it's SPI Firewall.
Since you want to use multiple static IPs you have fewer options with the configuration of the RG. If you are willing to use the DMZPlus feature, you can use your Linux box to provide features for a private LAN network segment without multiple static IP support.
What specific feature or features do you think are missing from the RG? Did you just join the Forum to rant or would you like to have a technical discussion with peers here on the Forum that know about the features, functions and yes even some of the limitations of the U-Verse solution. It is not perfect but DSL Extreme and TW are not perfect either. Since you have FTTP, your options are really limited.
Dave | |
| | | | | neiltif
join:2006-12-11
Bloomingdale, IL
| said by dave006 :Have you even tried to use the RG and it's capabilities? It has a Stateful packet inspection (SPI) Firewall. Really, well the GUI for configuring it must be designed for MIT grads only because its not obvious that its a real firewall at all. | |
| | | | | | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Again, have you tried to configure the Firewall settings using the GUI? It is very easy to open individual ports or groups of TCP or UDP ports or predefined Application groups. It it were designed by MIT Grads for MIT grads it would be all CLI.
You have the option of using simple pre-defined groups or selecting your individual groups of ports that you are interested in managing, you also have to ability to manage advanced features on the Firewall.
Dave | |
| satnone
join:2009-07-05
1 edit | Well sure I could use the RG and my IPs would be working, but then my network would not be setup the way I want it and would not be controlled my MY firewall, therefore it is not an option for me, but Ive already explained this.
Just to give you an idea of what my firewall does and to have a little technical talk like you suggested, I use IP aliases and I use 1:1 NAT to give public IPs to my specific servers. I keep all my servers behind my firewall and use linux iptables to allow openings for certain ports and to control my NAT any way I want (I can direct any port from any public IP specified in my IP aliases to any port and any private IP I want in my network). Some people might have one server they don't mind just sticking on the DMZ, but I don't do it that way... besides I have far more than one server that needs to be publicly accessible in some way. I think my ISP has no business doing anything on my local network. There control should end at the public side of our firewall. That's my opinion and Im sure it's the same opinion any business would have.
Anyways like I said all the tier 2 techs I talked to totally agreed with what I'm saying, and the last one who I was exchanging emails with even felt it was necessary to forward my email to her supervisor and said that he forwarded it to his manager, so hopefully eventually this will change. Until then I have already signed up with TW who by the way answered all my questions about reverse DNS management, port blocking and every other question I had in about 3 minutes (one sales person knew all the answers), which took about 10 hours, 7 different departments and 12 different reps (no exaggeration after adding it all up) to get from AT&T. It almost took all that just to find someone at AT&T that knew what reverse DNS was. One tech said "Um well it was my understanding that DNS is something that runs on your computer.. right?".
Sorry if this offends you or any other AT&T employees on here, but its the truth. | |
| | ralfwolf
join:2009-07-03
San Jose, CA
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by satnone :Just to give you an idea of what my firewall does and to have a little technical talk like you suggested, I use IP aliases and I use 1:1 NAT to give public IPs to my specific servers. I keep all my servers behind my firewall and use linux iptables to allow openings for certain ports and to control my NAT any way I want (I can direct any port from any public IP specified in my IP aliases to any port and any private IP I want in my network). satnone,
What you are describing is very typical so any suggestion to the contrary is obviously not based on experience or knowledge. That said, I think the only choice here is to work with what we've got or move on to another ISP. Currently, nobody is providing the speeds uverse promises so I'm stuck. Take a look at the macvlan kernel module.
»cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/MACVLAN.html
With this, it should be possible to create a separate virtual interface for each "real" ip (each with a different mac address) without adding extra hardware or creating VMs. These interfaces can then be put in the DMZ and used in your iptables rules to do nat or anything else. I've used this in another application and it looks exactly like a real ethernet interface from the outside. | |
| | | satnone
join:2009-07-05
1 edit | Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Wow that looks like exactly what I was looking for... too bad I didn't find out about this sooner. Oh well my speed package now should be even faster than the package I had before anyways. Hopefully I won't have too many problems with TW. I've never had their business class internet service, but have had their residential TV and havent been too happy with that. At my work we have many clients with this service so I think it may be alright.
Anyways thanks for this ralfwolf, it may come in handy for me in the future. | |
| | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Your Linux firewall does nothing that can't be done with the existing 2Wre. You can have a combination of public static IPs that have all ports open, ranges of ports open or even select individual ports open. You also have the ability to have static IP and NAT to individual private IPs using pinhole port forwarding. The DMZPlus is meant to be used for sharing the single IP and not for the static IPs.
The ISP stops their managment at the RG (router) level and it includes a SPI Firewall that is very configurable but you just have to spend a few minutes to learn how to use the tools. U-Verse gives you full control of the RG, many "business" grade providers don't even allow you to have a login id to the router to make any changes.
So again you can have a mix of static IP addresses (they are not part of any DMZPlus mode), they are on a fully routeable segment, and you still have PNAT addresses supported behind the RG.
The static IPs don't have to be fully exposed unless you choose to have them configured that way.
By default the Firewall still protects the static IPs. The Firewall also allows you to control groups of common ports based on common applications or the ability to create groups of ports: both TCP / UDP that you want to manage. If you have a block of 8 Static IPs for example (5 are fully routeable) and you can also have upto 254 PNAT devices that are supported in the private segment that also have port forwarding capability from the router's IP using NAT.
So again, you have not stated a specific requirement that can't be met by a properly configured RG other than you just like to use your Linux box.
AT&T and U-Verse don't manage your Firewall settings in the RG, so the boundry is really at the router aka the old DSU / CSU boundry. You have full control of the Firewall settings within the RG.
Dave | |
| | |
See 14 replies to this post | |
apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX | epeen wagging FTL... | |
|
UHerse Delivered
@sbcglobal.net
| After skimming through the guide, it looks like quite a bit of the options people are looking for have been purposely removed or disabled (either by 2wire or uverse) for use with the UVerse system. I mean, the 2wire I got from ATT for their dsl services even has all these features. Not sure why they are not available with the UVerse RG. | |
| |
Nicko773
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem I love your guys above posts, because they are the 100%truth. It's all about "control". And the U-Verse firewall software limits the customer to just that. What the techs forget, is that WE are paying AT&T to provide a service to the RG only. But it goes beyond that. You have to manipulate all your equipment to get it to work. You will NEVER see the RG have a bridge mode. That's where they lose control. They want you to use their equipement, which they could remote in without you knowing at any time. But with your own firewall running that could not be possible. They don't like that. I am not sure why they are doing this, possibly taking in revenue to see what TV channels you are watching, or monitoring your system. Who knows. I see in the future AT&T raising a fee for internal usage. U-Verse is a great TV system and it's great for the simple web customer who wants to browse the web. Go beyond that and the simple is out of the picture. There is more to this U-Verse than meets the eye.. I would love to see what information they gather from our RG's. Tech's on this forum don't seriously understand there are alot of very smart people on this site, ex.., the writers up above. These people can out match and gun any tier 2 tech working for AT&T. Just because they are not employed by AT&T doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. They are extremely smart. The techs always come back to the "Did you try and use the 2Wire full capability?" Yes they have, and they know what the truth is. Ya this a rant or whatever you want to call it, but it should be known to future people who are thinking about signing up to U-Verse. The sales people tell you whatever you want to hear to get the sale. I am going to be making that call at 8am this morning also to cancel my U-Verse. I always remember Walter C talking on the black and white TV signing off saying...... Thats the way it is...Goodnight... | |
| | | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem Hey, thanks for the rant. You did not mention who you were selecting when you make that 8 AM call to cancel U-Verse. Please make sure you post another rant when you have your new TV provider.... 
Just for the record, you do understand that U-Verse was designed to deliver IPTV, the triple play was just a benefit of the pipe. The AT&T U-verse system will continue to evolve and the iNID solution will bring yet another generation of service options and even more rants from the anon posters or posers.
You also might want to read the TOS of your new TV provider to make sure that they don't sell your viewing demo data since Dish, DIRECTV, TiVo and all Cable providers provide this data. Oops.
Just for the brave "anon" user, I don't work for AT&T and I never have worked directly for AT&T. My company has a long history of working with and competing against AT&T in the Global IT / Telecom marketplace.
I think I will agree with the following post as this thread may have descended into the darkness....
said by apeface :epeen wagging FTL... Dave | |
| | | |
UErrors
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by dave006 :Just for the record, you do understand that U-Verse was designed to deliver IPTV, the triple play was just a benefit of the pipe Note: Most of the complaints here are related to the requirement to use the RG. Some customers just want a bridged device and to run their own router. This option is not available with either U-Verse options. If you want to run your own router then you will have to choose the DMZplus option and then the Static IPs become much more complex to manage. For me, and I THINK most others, this is the biggest complaint. If it is really meant for JUST IPTV, and the other 'fluff' broadband, phone etc.. is just secondary, then they need to stop offering internet only service, and business service internet, that is truly so restricted and limited... If they are going to continue offering it, they really need to get out of lock-down mode, and allow these internet customers some of the basic featuers every basic small router/modem/gateway can do. As noted before, all the other 2Wire Att devices (for basic DSL) can do these features without the problem, why is ATT locking down this RG so much, and forcing everything to go through it, no matter what the options. It is, in the end, VERY limited, and VERY difficult to work with, if you want anything more than just a single ip with a pipe for a few computers to the internet. There are issues that need to be worked out.
My personally documented issues (not rants) that I have been able to repeat easily:
1. We all know the DNS issue, I guess the simple fix would be just assign the DNS servers to each system, instead of forcing them through the RG. Maybe there is some limitation with the STBs (TV Custs) though that requires this.
2. Wireless, while I am overall impressed with the wireless range, there is a glitch regarding 2.4Ghz phones. Even if you have NO wireless devices connected, a 2.4Ghz phone can easily cause interference with your broadband service, causing 'glitches' and timeouts. Why is this interference being passed through to your connection?
3. The RG will bog, and bog hard, under more heavy load, and a lot of connections. Rarely causing total failure, but certainly must slow responses for doing anything that has to go through it.
4. Basically to sum up, I think that maybe the fault comes down the the RG hardware. Maybe it doesn't have the power to handle everything they are trying to get it to do. They really need to look at allowing some offloading, and not forcing EVERYTHING to be processed by the RG. Does anyone have the technically specs for the device? I have not been able to find them. Maybe its a firmware compatibility issue with the RG? Something needs to be done though regardless, 2years, with the same issues, that all point to the RG (even after replacements), that are very reproducible (even at another location with a uverse cust.) and nothing has been done. What gives ATT? | |
| HWL
join:2009-07-26
Houston, TX
1 edit | Hi all...
I just ordered UVerse Small Biz and after reading this post I have many questions.
1. Is UVerse residential available with (5) statics? Can it run a server/mail farm?
2. More importantly, I now have 5 IPs (from my present ISP) that are "out there", no FW...thats what I want - 5 IPs open to the WAN. Is that what I am going to get from UVerse or do I get one DMZ and 4 behind a firewall? This post has confused me...probably unnecessarily.
Thank you. | |
| | dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem 1. Short answer is Yes. The major differences between U-Verse and U-Verse Small Business is that Small Business is High Speed Internet (HSI) with no option for IPTV and the pricing options are different.
2. Static IPs are available on both options. You will get a minimum of a standalone subnet of 8 IP addresses with 5 Static IPs that can be assigned to your hosts behind the RG. The DMZplus option is different from having a public segment with static IPs. Yes, you can use a combination of NAT, DMZplus and a Public IP segment all at the same time.
The RG by default does provide some additional Advanced Firewall protection for your Public Static IP segment. You have the option disable all "Firewall" protection. Very easy to do via the Web UI.
You also have the option to have some hosts on the Pubic Segment with static IPs and some other hosts on a private segment if you choose.
I would suggest that if you have further questions, that you consider starting a new thread that is specific to your set of questions.
Note: Most of the complaints here are related to the requirement to use the RG. Some customers just want a bridged device and to run their own router. This option is not available with either U-Verse options. If you want to run your own router then you will have to choose the DMZplus option and then the Static IPs become much more complex to manage.
Dave | |
|
UErrors
@sbcglobal.net
| Also with that said, I am overall happy with the stability and consistency of the service. I think there are just some minor issues that need to be taken care of, that is really holding UVerse back. Other providers I have used usually have a few major issues that seem to be never taken care of properly, with UVerse, I just see several minor issues, but they still need to be taken care of. Its new technology, learning experience for everyone, weeding out bugs, etc.., but it gets to a point, come on, you keep wanting to sell sell sell, but the flaws are there, not being fixed. | |
| jnessen
join:2009-07-29
Simi Valley, CA
| I think from what I read above, I can not use a router behind the RG using static IP's... Is this right?
My current set up uses two separate routers post DSL modem on two static IP's. One I need for QoS (SIP traffic) and one is for T-Mobile @Home service (this one requires their "special" router with a sim card in it). My home was to assign a static to each one of these and turn off all firewall rules to/from them, and let them handle the NAT for my internal networks. Is this a possibility? From reading above, it sounded like I could do it, then in the last few posts it sounds like I can't. My service is being installed next Tuesday, and my existing DSL is being ripped out this Friday 
Any help to get to the bottom of this before I am DSL-less would be appreciated. | |
| |
TwoWireEvil
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by jnessen :I think from what I read above, I can not use a router behind the RG using static IP's... Is this right? Since I do not have the need for additional static ips, I can not post my personal experience about this. I do not think you can pass the ips to a specific device behind the RG to handle the ips. Basically, if your going to be using your own router, I have heard it is VERY tricky, and you need to follow a very specific set of instructions, and it still isn't setup properly, but works.
Again, someone that has had to personally deal with multiple static ips and their own routers could probably answer better.
said by jnessen :My current set up uses two separate routers post DSL modem on two static IP's. One I need for QoS (SIP traffic) and one is for T-Mobile @Home service (this one requires their "special" router with a sim card in it). My home was to assign a static to each one of these and turn off all firewall rules to/from them, and let them handle the NAT for my internal networks. Is this a possibility? From reading above, it sounded like I could do it, then in the last few posts it sounds like I can't. My service is being installed next Tuesday, and my existing DSL is being ripped out this Friday Any help to get to the bottom of this before I am DSL-less would be appreciated. Unfortunately, the 2WIRE RG does not have a 'bridge mode', you can only dmz+ (which forwards all ports) to a single specific device to handle. Their are some options to disable certain firewall features, and you can grab a public ip this way, however, the 2Wire is still acting as a proxy between your traffic, and processing it, which results in a double NAT condition. There does not seem to be a way to have the 2wire "just stay out of the way" at this point. The feature has been 'locked out', 'removed', 'disabled', for whatever reason.
Again with the multiple IP assignment, someone else will have to comment. The UVerse RG makes things pretty messy, and really breaks the way of proper routing when it comes to custom setups behind it. | |
| satnone
join:2009-07-05
| HWL and jnessen,
You guys absolutely will not be able to do what you want to do. I had to cancel my service because of this and go with Time Warner who I gotta say so far has been great as long as its business class and NOT residential service. They will give you a cable modem/router which does those 2 things and only those 2 things, like any other normal business class internet service (an unfiltered untouched pipe to the internet). | |
| bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
clubs:
| Once they figure out they don't need to charge for a truck roll, I might try out the static IP service to see whats going on it with. DMZplus is useless, because its still filtering and it loses the mapping once in a while.
But to spend $99 on a truck roll is ridiculous. | |
| mythulto
join:2009-08-07
Arlington Heights, IL
| Except for the squabbling, this was a very useful thread. I was all psyched today when ATT installed U-verse TV and internet. But it looks like tomorrow I will have to cancel the internet portion. I spent about 30 minutes tinkering with the 2Wire before checking this forum and finding this post. Looks like you guys saved me many hours of grief. The inability to act as a simple bridge is a real shame.
Fortunately, my Comcast account is still working great. The Comcast business account with 5 static IP's, running on their bridged modem, coupled with my SonicWall router/firewall does everything I need flawlessly. | |
|
Robert75
@sbcglobal.net
| Oh boy am i glad I found this thread. I did order uverse bus a week ago for a project I have in Dallas and I was going to buy a new Zyxel VDSL2 modem for the project next week.
Now that I know that I can't bring my own vdsl2 modem and the 2wire gateway can't be bridged and made dumb i will have to call at&t and cancel the installation.
This thread saved me time and travel expenses since our main office is in Harlingen, TX | |
| |
UHerse Deliv
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem said by Robert75 :
Oh boy am i glad I found this thread. I did order uverse bus a week ago for a project I have in Dallas and I was going to buy a new Zyxel VDSL2 modem for the project next week.
Now that I know that I can't bring my own vdsl2 modem and the 2wire gateway can't be bridged and made dumb i will have to call at&t and cancel the installation.
This thread saved me time and travel expenses since our main office is in Harlingen, TX
Yeah, very unfortunate that such a very basic common feature was taken out and/or disabled for U-Verse. All the standard 2wire devices that you get directly from 2wire has this? What gives? | |
| jmatthi
join:2009-10-26
Dallas, TX
| Can you use a 2700 2wire device with Uverse? If so, you could get the bridging option needed since it is in there and active.
Ebay has quite a few that could be purchased. 
I just got Uverse with 5 Statics and I am guessing I will need 5 routers (one for each IP available) to route over to my firewall to get it working with my network like it used to with DSL.
I tried IP aliases and that doesn't seem to be working. Is there any other options that I have missed besides VMWare?
Thanks | |
| | 
gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
clubs: | Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem No you can't use the 2700 that's for a ADSL circuit not VDSL which is what U-Verse is. The 3800 is the only modem that can currently be used with U-Verse. | |
| jmatthi
join:2009-10-26
Dallas, TX | Why can't someone just hack the thing and so we can put it out of our(it's) misery.  | |
| | bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
clubs: | Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem I do need to get back to that lol | |
| | | |
|
·
·