dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
583
share rss forum feed


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT

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.


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

2 recommendations

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.


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to cowboyro
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.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply 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
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI

2 recommendations

reply 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.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT

2 recommendations

reply to cowboyro
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.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

reply to cowboyro
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.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT

1 recommendation

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.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

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.


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
reply to cowboyro
10.x.x.x network is defined as private.

AT&T should not be telling you that you can't use it unless they plan on breaking something.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
reply to ISurfTooMuch
Moving towards a private IP on the WAN side has the potential to create a big mess and makes no sense from a business perspective as the amount of problems caused and support required would be overwhelming.
I highly doubt AT&T has any risk of running out of IPv4 addresses... they sit on a pool more than enough for the entire US population even at the rate of 1/household.


Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

1 recommendation

reply to cowboyro
I don't know if you know how U-Verse works.

The IPs handed out to U-Verse are tagged by equipment. Usually, you'll never lose the same IP for the life of your equipment.

I've had the same "dynamic" IP for multiple years now, even after shutting off power to my RG for a day.

I've got access to web appliances (irrigation, HVAC, security cameras, garage door, lights), accessible via my IP address & port assignments that are great. With this new scheme, how do you propose I regain that functionality? Paying $15/month? I already get it for free.
--
My Blog 2.2


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
said by Gbcue:

I don't know if you know how U-Verse works.

The IPs handed out to U-Verse are tagged by equipment. Usually, you'll never lose the same IP for the life of your equipment.

"Usually" is the key word. A static IP takes any chance out of the equation.
I've had the same IP for 3 years...

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

reply to jjoshua
They aren't telling you that you can't use it, per se. The issue is that their RG will allow you to specify, via a pull-down menu, the private IP block that you want it to assign to devices on the LAN side, and the 10.x.x.x range is one of your choices. I think what they'll do is push new firmware that will delete that option. Now, if you are set up to use another range, then you're OK, but, if you use that one, the results could be unpredictable. In a perfect world, the firmware update would cause the RG to default to something else, maybe 192.168.x.x, but, even if that happens, it could still cause problems if you have machines mapped to specific IP's.

If you're using a separate router behind the RG, which is grabbing a private IP from the RG and then using another layer of NAT that happens to be set to 10.x.x.x, then you should be fine leaving that alone. In fact, that's what I'm doing.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to cowboyro
Yeah, but sometimes "usually" is the best you can get, depending on what your ISP will give you.


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If you're using a separate router behind the RG, which is grabbing a private IP from the RG and then using another layer of NAT that happens to be set to 10.x.x.x, then you should be fine leaving that alone. In fact, that's what I'm doing.

In fact, you would be wrong if you tried to access the outside world from within any private network that uses 10.x.x.x.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to nightshade74
Maybe for their stupid CPEs. I've seen numerous netgears and linksys's handle inside and outside networks "on the same subnet." Yes, if an internal host tried to talk to an external host in the same private range (192.168.1.0/24 for example), it wouldn't work because it would never leave the local lan. But the odds of that happening are very low.

(In network lingo, it's called "split horizon". It occurs more often than you might think, and people rarely notice.)