how-to block ads
|
UHerse Delivered
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to dave006
Re: U-Verse Static IP's: Not Working, Can't figure out problem
Good post dave006, I do not post often, but definitely a lot of "mis-terminology" here. I think most people kinda know what people are getting at in general though, and are correct, in the 2Wire lack of configuration and custom routing solutions. Another thing that stood out, was linux not handling routing? Which a linux based o/s would definitely not be my first choice by any means (*BSD is vastly superior in this department), I think it would be a fine choice for a home setup, if configured properly. I will agree though, again, with larger demand, and a more business enterprise setup, it is not the best solution, and a more powerful *BSD box would be required. | |
ralfwolf
join:2009-07-03
San Jose, CA
| reply to dave006
Let me speak slowly since you seem to have problems following. I don't have a problem with the uverse service. I have everything I need setup and working. Is it perfect? No but I don't expect perfection from a residential service. Not a problem for me. In fact, I actually did my research before I got my service installed and came up with several solutions to many of the problems others have had with the 2wire box such as the requirement for 1 to 1 mapping of IP to mac. I don't expect nor want AT&T to provide enterprise level service nor do I need or want an SLA (although basic SLA requirements are established especially for the voice service regardless). I'd just like the RG that's provided to get out of my way if I want to implement my on security.
My post was aimed at your comment that a Linux firewall solution does nothing that can't be done with a 2wire RG. Sorry, I don't buy that someone with 30+ years (sorry 20 years would have been a more believable number in any case) can even consider make this statement for one second. Regardless, you still didn't address the specific examples I gave of clear firewall functions that any Linux (or BSD or Solaris) machines can perform and how 2wire or any RG can. Again, that's not to say I'd expect any RG to compete here but you made a statement that begs to be corrected. And who cares if your company has one of the first class A networks. My first 3 companies all had class A's as well as a number of additional class B's. Oh.. sorry, I simply can't take anyone who uses the word interweb seriously. 
Regarding DMZplus... DMZ is by definition an unsecured zone where the firewall provides no protections. I guess the "plus" part means it's not really a DMZ. If the 2wire provided a true DMZ, I'd have no problem with that. Also, your statement that the RG has to "strip off traffic for other ports" is ridiculous since with statics, I've assigned an external IP to my internal box and that IP is not used by the RG for any ports/services I might have punched for other natpool machines. Natpool machines go out with and have ports forwarded from the dynamic IP that the RG gets at startup which is completely outside my static subnet. I have no confusion here but apparently you do.
BTW, I know how much T1 costs. I managed my company's T1 for some years before we decided to go metro ethernet. I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make here since nobody in their right mind would buy a T1 for home use even if they are running a business. More cost effective to get a colo rack at that point. Let me repeat again. I'm fine with residential service and don't expect anything from the ISP but to provide the connection. What your static IP customers are complaining about, and what you appear to have trouble accepting or understanding, is that the 2wire RG is not ideal for static IP needs. It neither provides the functions that most static IP customers are looking for nor does it allow you to bypass it's built in firewall. I posted a suggestion above that addresses at least one of the common issues in an attempt to help others resolve their problems. What have you done other than to tell everyone that they don't know what they're doing and that the RG will do everything they need?
Oh, one last thing... I have a packet capture where the server sends a FIN, my client machine ACKs the server's FIN and send a FIN it self. At that point I never see the ack from the server. I never said it was my machine stuck in FIN_WAIT_2 (underscore added for your benefit). I simply theorized that if the RG tracks tcp state, as it most certainly does given that it adds a nat translation entry even when no translation is required, that the RG itself has a FIN_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2 timer that removes the session prematurely. Alternately, the RG might be removing the NAT entry on the second FIN-ACK and not waiting for final ACK. Either way, I occasionally get tcp connections that hang on close which I never had before.
Now for the rest of you actually trying to get things working.. Not sure if this has been discussed before but I found the /mdc page extremely helpful in discovering what the RG is actually doing. Including it's nat translation table. You can also change the nat table timeouts here which usually have defaults that are much too high for my taste. Also check out the Even Log to help understand why some connections get blocked. | |
dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Wow, this is fun. First let me correct your very first sentence. I could be wrong but based on my 50+ years, last time I checked, yep, I am sure you are typing and not speaking, that is unless you are using one of those new interweb apps.
I am glald you get your static block working now let's help others understand the magic of the 2Wire. I will address your personal attack later... here we try to stay on topic.
Again for the record, the 2Wire does not provide a true DMZ (no residential router does this since by definition a true DMZ is outside your "Edge of Network" ingress point, and that fact is clearly identified on the the 2Wire's Firewall Settings page.
I explained the DMZplus function since you mentioned that you had your "box" in the DMZ and were just running your bittorrent client and you did not seem to understand that the SPI was still protecting your "box" against the evil interweb. You brought up the DMZ and the issue you had with not understanding why the "redirect" page was displayed for your "box" running a bittorrent client. Again if you don't want the "Advanced Features", just turn them off or ask how they work. I would be happy to explain each setting since I can read and write while not talking on the interweb.
The 2Wire does by default provide protection to all clients, even the "DMZplus-enabled computer". The DMZplus works just as I explained. All inbound traffic is delivered to the client in the "DMZplus" mode but first any traffic that is mapped for other machines based on the pinholes opened in the 2Wire Firewall Settings Page. So if you don't want to know how the DMZplus mode works don't ask why you got the HURL redirect. Again, you mentioned "DMZ" first. I just answered your question.
DMZplus Summary: All inbound traffic, except traffic which has been specifically assigned to another computer using the “Allow individual applications” feature, will automatically be directed to this computer but still protected by the SPI firewall
The public routeable static block is not part of the DMZplus feature. So any of your 'boxes" in the public routeable static segment are not in or part of the DMZplus. But again they are still by default protected by the 2Wire's SPI Firewall (Layer 4, since you want to get technical). If you don't like the Firewall features of the SPI Firewall, you can just "Uncheck" all of those boxes that are confusing you with those "firewall" terms. and you will be wide open to the interweb.
By now you might have guessed that us old timers like to joke about the "interweb" term since we invented it to describe individuals like you. Quote: The term interweb originated as a response to the influx of inexperienced users to the Internet's forums and chat rooms. Whereas the Internet had previously been the exclusive domain of the tech-savvy, it was now attracting millions of newcomers (noobs) who were now participating in it, often with poor netiquette (that would again be YOU) 
Try a little searching in the interweb an you will see some of the many projects that I have been involved in since the early days of networking and the internet. BTW, it did not start in 1993 at CERN. It goes much farther back to the old days of ARPANET. My first network connection was a 115 BAUD half duplex acoustical modem on a private circuit in a litte office in DC that lead to the development of the MAE East IEP in McLean VA. We were building the moden backbone for the internet long before Al Gore "invented the Internet".
As I side note, I have only been a registered user since since 1999 but based on your personal attack, I guess I would have only be 10 at the time, so thanks for the compliment.
Just for the record "linux" is not a real Unix system. You might notice that I keep references it in "quotes' it is "Unix Like" toy, so maybe you should stop playing with toys and listen to your elders. That's why I find it funny everytime someone of your age group claims that a linux box can be a realy routher / firewall. Oh, just for the record I wrote about 10,000 lines of code as part of the port of Berkly Unix to the Mainframe (UTS) world in the early 80s. But I guess that means I don't know as much as you. Just a quick reminder BSD and all the other versions of 'nix are based on the original work done by a little company called "AT&T Bell Laboratories"
Since it looks like you are in San Jose, you might want to swing by 2Wire and help them fix their designs to include your great ideas or at least listen to your rants.
Dave | |
ralfwolf
join:2009-07-03
San Jose, CA
| I'll keep this brief and to the point.
1. "I am sure you are typing and not speaking.."
I chose my words very specifically to convey a tone. Obviously the subtlety was lost on you.
2. "the magic of the 2Wire"
The only magic in the 2wire box is just like any other magician. It depends on obfuscation.
3. "Again for the record, the 2Wire does not provide a true DMZ"
Ok, agreed. That's what I meant when I said that I wish the 2wire would just get out of my way.
4. "You brought up the DMZ and the issue you had with not understanding why the "redirect" page was displayed for your "box" running a bittorrent client."
Oh I understand completely what it was doing. I simply didn't understand why it was doing it. Offering a DMZ that doesn't turn off firewall protections unless I turn them off globally is useless. That says the only thing DMZplus does is open holes for all ports. In every other RG and enterprise router I've ever used, DMZ (either physical or logical) means other hosts get protected while hosts in the DMZ don't.
5. "By now you might have guessed that us old timers like to joke about the "interweb" term since we invented it to describe individuals like you."
Call me a noob all you want but I know where I've been and what I've done. I was active in most of the unix usenet groups prior to any web forums even existed.
6. "It goes much farther back to the old days of ARPANET. My first network connection was a 115 BAUD half duplex acoustical modem.."
Quite aware of internet history already but thanks for the wikipedia recap. I will give you that my first modem was a 300 baud. Not acoustic but it was pre "AT" command so had to dial manually. So if you did indeed have a 115baud modem, I bow to your greater experience.
7. "...Al Gore "invented the Internet""
Hehe. I was just about to compare you to Al Gore for claiming to invent the internet. Here at least we appear to have common ground. I always wished I could borrow his PR person for a day and take credit for the wheel or some such.
8. "... I guess I would have only be 10 at the time, so thanks for the compliment."
I never mentioned your age. Guilty conscience or just being defensive.
9. "Just for the record "linux" is not a real Unix system"
I never said it was. I don't believe anyone mentioned UNIX in this thread prior to yours. Sorry, you should have read more closely when you looked this one up. UNIX (as it's properly capitalized) is an OS specification which resulted in an implementation by Bell Labs and AT&T. There is nothing magic or special in being declared a UNIX OS other than paying to be certified and paying to license the name. Linux as a completely open source OS did not get certified or pay for the name. Nor did the creators of Linux want to take any proprietary code from the orginal BSD or AT&T code since it wanted to stay clear of any additional license issues. Having administered SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and Ultrix networks, I've worked with BSD as well as SVR4 based systems and all of them are different even though they are all UNIX variants. Linux adheres more closely to BSD UNIX historically but technically, "Linux" is just a kernel, a C compiler, and a set of basic tools. Oh, one last point. BSD only exists today in several open source flavors which guess what... can't be called UNIX because they are not certified or licensed.
10. "Unix Like" toy
This is one of my favorite. This "toy" is being used at hundreds if not thousands of enterprises. Ebay/Paypal, oh and Google, oh yeah, Cisco too.. just to name a few. Maybe you've heard of some of these. So, I will go back to playing with my "toy" but I have yet to hear from an "elder" on this thread worth listening to.
Now, in all of that, you've still avoided my main question which is how someone who supposedly has 30+ years of networking experience can make the bold statement that the 2wire RG (or any RG) can do everything a Linux machine running as a firewall can do. To me that statement is flatly inconsistent with your experience. Also, if you do indeed want to help the rest of us understand what the 2wire RG is doing, please explain what the "Miscellaneous" option in the firewall does exactly. I asked these questions in my second post on this thread and have yet to get an answer to either. | |
apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX | reply to CJ Texas
epeen wagging FTL... | |
UHerse Delivered
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to ralfwolf
Did some research.
Miscellaneous The firewall checks for the following:
Unknown IP protocol — drop packet.
Port 0 attack detected — drop packet.
TCP SYN packet — drop packet.
Not a start session packet — drop packet.
ICMP destination unreachable — terminate session.
From Model 2700: »www.2wire.com/pages/driversanddo···hp?did=5
Check out this link some 2wire: »www.2wire.com/pages/pdfs/5100-00···ev.A.pdf
Couldn't find a manual for this specific RG, though the 2700 is virtually the same. A lot more detailed explanation of things going on in the RG with that manual. I am actually impressed with the descriptions. I guess 2wire can do *SOMETHING* right.. heh | |
UHerse Delivered
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to CJ Texas
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. | |
ralfwolf
join:2009-07-03
San Jose, CA
| reply to UHerse Delivered
Thanks. That helps.
The strange thing is, when I was trying to use the RG firewall, I turned *off* Miscellaneous and the RG stopped return traffic from the outside. I used tcpdump on an inside host and on an outside server and found that the syn got from my inside host to the outside server and the server sent a syn-ack but the syn-ack never got to my inside client. I also saw alerts on the RG saying it had detected packets for an unknown session. That led me to conclude that Miscellaneous actually does something more than just blocking bad stuff but it sets up some basic state that maybe other firewall features required. It seemed very counter intuitive that turning off a firewall feature would cause traffic to be blocked. | |
Nicko773
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to UHerse Delivered
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
| reply to ralfwolf
said by ralfwolf  :Thanks. That helps. The strange thing is, when I was trying to use the RG firewall, I turned *off* Miscellaneous and the RG stopped return traffic from the outside. I used tcpdump on an inside host and on an outside server and found that the syn got from my inside host to the outside server and the server sent a syn-ack but the syn-ack never got to my inside client. I also saw alerts on the RG saying it had detected packets for an unknown session. That led me to conclude that Miscellaneous actually does something more than just blocking bad stuff but it sets up some basic state that maybe other firewall features required. It seemed very counter intuitive that turning off a firewall feature would cause traffic to be blocked. Oops, it looks like your conclusion might be wrong. If you turned "off" the Miscellaneous setting in the 2Wire Firewall - Advanced Settings while you have an active connection to a mapped connection you should expect to restart your client connection to your outside host.
Once you remove the Miscellaneous Setting Check-box setting you "Submit" the settings and in the case of active mapped sessions you will need to restart your session(s).
My 2Wire Firewall configuration has the "Excessive Session Detection" and the "Miscellaneous" options deselected and all my applications work just fine.
You might try clearing the Invalid TCP Flag Attacks (NULL/XMAS/Other) option and see if your SYN_ACK (SYN/ACK or SYN-ACK, since you like to complain about case selection used in a web forum) make the trip through the 2Wire Firewall Gauntlet 
Again, once you submit your Firewall Settings, the 2Wire will reset the SPI Firewall state so any active TCP connections may be impacted. You should restart any client / server connection since that active session port/host mapping may have been impacted by your tweaking of the Firewall settings.
I think in your specific case you might just turn off all of the 2Wire Firewall Advanced Settings and then retry your tests to your remote server and see what pops up in your tcpdump.
This way you can't blame the 2Wire Firewall feature for breaking your TCP 3-way handshake.
Dave | |
dave006
join:1999-12-26
Boca Raton, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Nicko773
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 | |
HWL
join:2009-07-26
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to CJ Texas
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
| 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
| reply to dave006
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? | |
UErrors
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to CJ Texas
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
| reply to CJ Texas
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
| 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
| reply to CJ Texas
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:
| reply to CJ Texas
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
| reply to CJ Texas
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. | |
-
|
