dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

1 edit

do they really need "the big one?"

I have to wonder - how many uVerse customers there are, and if they really need to start out using "the big one" (10.x.x.x)?

At some point, I suppose they intend to move *everyone* into this (home customers - DSL & uVerse).

- - - A few hours later, this appears to be the case. DSL accounts are being moved to uVerse - »AT&T Forcing DSL Users to Upgrade to U-Verse)

This really shouldn't *break everything* 100%, other than VPN between endpoints on the same sub-net range.
At that point, well, it can get "fun."

If they started doing this for DSL, I would certainly have been contacted, as I was using this range. No longer with AT&T, though my provider appears to directly connect - wonder if they'll have to be forced into this eventually... and by extension, me.

Very curious to see how this pans out.
I'd think that it'd still be a better option to tunnel, and start deploying IPv6 now.

If all "home" users were forced into IPv6 in the next year, IPv4 would be open enough for business usage that it'd buy plenty of time on that front.


... and this is precisely why I moved to a 10.x.x.x, because so many places I VPN to, even boneheaded company networks, have 192.168.1.x sub-nets, so what ATT recommend is going to be a royal pain.

I got one of the letters, it simply demands the change, explains nothing, and tries to placate me with a one time $25 credit.

It is my sub-net, behind closed doors, I don't understand what any of this this has to do with IPV6. Of course, AT&T think so little of their customers that they are not going to even try to explain.

Phil Karn2

San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

said by Customer :

I don't understand what any of this this has to do with IPV6.

It doesn't have anything to do with IPv6. They want to use the block themselves, and so you can't use it.

Now it's possible that they'll use that block only to address their own routers that the customer's routers peer with. A lot of networks already do this because their own routers never have to be addressed by anyone but the NOC or the users when setting up a default route. The end users could still have public addresses.

But I agree it's more likely that AT&T will also want to assign them to the upstream interface on your router, in place of the public and routable IPv4 address you now have. And that will break a lot of things, just as everyone has said it will.

Whenever I use the phrase "carrier grade NAT" I always put it in quotation marks.

Certainly, the best way to get that functionality back is to implement IPv6. The problem is that it's not entirely up to me. Sure, I have implemented it on my own home network; I've set up a 6rd tunnel and every device that can speak IPv6 is speaking IPv6. But not all, and I don't control their firmware.

Nor do I control the routers on all the various public hotspots that I visit. Nearly all of them stick you behind a NAT that will make it impossible for you to contact your own server at home once AT&T puts it behind a NAT. Even with IPv6 at home, you still need the hotspot operator to implement IPv6 (or use a godawful kludge like Teredo).

That's just the problem. It's not a question of any one individual agreeing to implement IPv6, it's that we're all dependent on others to implement it on networks that we do not control.