dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
55
share rss forum feed


NetFixer
Bah Humbug
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 recommendation

reply to ArrayList

Re: possible?

said by ArrayList:

I'm going to venture a guess that AT&T has no shortage of IPv4 addresses.

Perhaps not, but they are nonetheless conserving their use by using NAT:


C:\>tracert -4 att.yahoo.com
 
Tracing route to ds-any-ycpi-uno.aycpi.b.yahoodns.net [206.190.57.60]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  2   381 ms   401 ms   401 ms  172.26.248.2
  3   359 ms   365 ms   368 ms  172.16.7.82
  4   348 ms   406 ms   401 ms  10.251.11.32
  5   365 ms   399 ms   474 ms  10.251.10.2
  6   323 ms   349 ms   340 ms  10.252.1.1
  7   315 ms   365 ms   337 ms  209-183-048-002.mobile.mymmode.com [209.183.48.2]
  8   327 ms   370 ms   365 ms  172.16.75.1
  9   339 ms   400 ms   388 ms  12.94.97.13
 10   368 ms   399 ms   410 ms  cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.100.26]
 11   340 ms   411 ms   364 ms  dlstx02jt.ip.att.net [12.122.214.245]
 12   340 ms   342 ms   389 ms  192.205.37.50
 13   355 ms   365 ms   383 ms  ash-bb3-link.telia.net [213.155.130.70]
 14   350 ms   491 ms   414 ms  ash-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.248.161]
 15   386 ms   443 ms   352 ms  yahoo-ic-141068-ash-bb1.c.telia.net [80.239.193.54]
 16   333 ms   398 ms   388 ms  UNKNOWN-206-190-56-X.yahoo.com [206.190.56.13]
 17   351 ms   411 ms   388 ms  r1.ycpi.vip.dcb.yahoo.net [206.190.57.60]
 
Trace complete.
 



The above traceroute example is on an AT&T Mobility 3G connection, but they are doing the same thing to U-verse in many areas (and the plan is to make NAT universal for all customers who do not pay for static IPv4 public addresses).

--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

That's not "NAT". It's private addressing on the-internet-doesn't-need-to-talk-to-them internal routers. ISPs have been doing that for a decade! Yes, there are minor issues with router generated messages (ICMP), but I've found it to be rare. (and even then, it's the result of deliberate configuration(s) by the local admin(s). yes, sometimes that's *me*.)


NetFixer
Bah Humbug
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
said by cramer:

That's not "NAT". It's private addressing on the-internet-doesn't-need-to-talk-to-them internal routers. ISPs have been doing that for a decade! Yes, there are minor issues with router generated messages (ICMP), but I've found it to be rare. (and even then, it's the result of deliberate configuration(s) by the local admin(s). yes, sometimes that's *me*.)

With a private local IP address of 10.185.97.169, and a different public Internet IP address of 32.150.98.172, it most definitely is Network Address Translation:


C:\>hostname
rws-wks
 
C:\>ipconfig
 
Windows IP Configuration
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : dcs-net
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.100
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:88f8:cb38:9ea:b79
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d%4
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.254
                                            fe80::1e7e:e5ff:fe4c:e6ff%4
 
PPP adapter AT&T Mobility:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
 
C:\>dig rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
 
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40851
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
 
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.         IN      A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.  60      IN      A       32.150.98.172
 
;; Query time: 125 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.2#53(192.168.9.2)
;; WHEN: Tue Jan 22 16:18:56 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 66
 



--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

Well, yeah. That's NAT. I was just going on the traceroute showing private addresses, which is quite common these days.

Mobile networks have been known to do that for at least 8 years now? I remember my older Cingular phone having two WAP profiles... one for "VPN" that was public IP and the other was NAT'd. (the former was an additional cost add-on. naturally.) Honestly, I never bother to look at the address a phone gets -- I don't need to get to it directly over the internet, so "it's never come up".


Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

said by cramer:

That's not "NAT". It's private addressing on the-internet-doesn't-need-to-talk-to-them internal routers. ISPs have been doing that for a decade! Yes, there are minor issues with router generated messages (ICMP), but I've found it to be rare. (and even then, it's the result of deliberate configuration(s) by the local admin(s). yes, sometimes that's *me*.)

With a private local IP address of 10.185.97.169, and a different public Internet IP address of 32.150.98.172, it most definitely is Network Address Translation:


C:\>hostname
rws-wks
 
C:\>ipconfig
 
Windows IP Configuration
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : dcs-net
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.100
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:88f8:cb38:9ea:b79
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d%4
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.254
                                            fe80::1e7e:e5ff:fe4c:e6ff%4
 
PPP adapter AT&T Mobility:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
 
C:\>dig rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
 
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40851
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
 
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.         IN      A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.  60      IN      A       32.150.98.172
 
;; Query time: 125 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.2#53(192.168.9.2)
;; WHEN: Tue Jan 22 16:18:56 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 66
 



AT&T Mobile and most other mobile providers have been doing that for years and years. Some also have a transparent proxy that gives an NAT effect, but also compresses certain web data. Given the low res of cell phone screens vs pc screens(even high res mobile screens are too small to see the detail a pc can provide), this can actually be good for capped web users. Not so good for running a server, which one would not want to do on a capped connection, anyways. NAT traversal in mobile VoIP clients has advanced to a point this does not bother me. Fixed line has not taken to this tactic in the US yet. The network topology of a fixed line network is much different than most mobile networks. Besides, all these mobile devices that are always online would kill far more of the IP address pool than computers. Think of the number of families where each member runs an internet enabled phone 24/7. Most people turn off their PC sometimes. Most families with multiple PCs opt for a router instead of separate lines, which uses 1 IP 24/7 per family/household. A family with 5 phones without mobile being NATed would use 5.

--
A fool thinks they know everything.

A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.

There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either.


NetFixer
Bah Humbug
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 recommendation

The whole point of my original post was that AT&T is utilizing their AT&T Mobility experience and is starting to implement NAT for their U-verse customers too. It is not done in all areas yet, but that is their plan.

Search the news and U-verse forum on this site if you want to see the official AT&T announcements and discussions of the implementation.
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.


Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2
Anything I could dig up on Google or our own search here seems like a load of FUD to me. People were bugging out about the need to switch internal LAN addresses and AT&T's statement that they are taking measures to more efficiently use IPv4 addresses. Only confirmation we have is random forum people who supposedly talked to X person from AT&T, who may be telling the truth, but talked to an uninformed rep(happens to me with any provider, but I know tech enough to sniff it out). A forum member may have hit it on the head though. AT&T may be switching to private addresses for internal IPTV services and such(maybe even DNS and other customer-only services), which would make perfect sense. AT&T does this on wireless. Such servers are routable to their customers, but try reaching them from another provider. Not going to happen. Given I could not dig up any reports of NATed users almost a year after this mandatory internal LAN IP change, it only makes sense that it is most likely AT&T allocating internal servers internal addresses, which an LAN address in the same range would have the router thinking you're trying to access a LAN resource instead of said AT&T servers. It makes just as much sense as the FUD that has yet to materialize. Think about it.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.

A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.

There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either.


Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2

2 edits
reply to NetFixer
I have a link of my own that refutes your theory thus far »wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs#United_···_America Before jumping to conclusions, look at note 11 under unresolvable NAT problem for ADSL2+ HSI(which VDSL isn't noted to cause an NAT problem at all, neither is regular ADSL): "Note 11: The Motorola 2210-02-1ATT DSL modem (and probably also the other DSL modems that work with U-verse ADSL2+ HSI) does not have a bridge mode and is apparently overwhelmed by the different number of nodes communicating with your PC over DHT. Disable DHT as a work-around, and possibly also reduce the total number of connection allowed by your BitTorrent client to 100 or so." A better solution to me would seem to be to ask for a different model gateway. No idea why TWC is on the list of limiting BT bandwidth and unresolvable NAT problem, as a side note. I always get incoming connections and I can get full speed from Linux ISO torrents that I download and seed without a VPN. In fact, one reason I torrent them is that it's often the only way to max out my line on such downloads, which can be a few gigs(making you want to max it out), besides wanting to help the community.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.

A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.

There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to NetFixer
You are comparing apples an oranges here. UVerse does not have the same network design as AT&T Wireless. All mobile carriers NAT their customers.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2
See my post above. He is yet another chicken little thinking the sky is falling because people had to move from a 10.x.x.x LAN address before world IPv6 day and AT&T stating they are trying to conserve IPv4 addresses. I believe they just want the 10 block for internal servers to route internally and save IPv4 addresses. Try telling that to these guys, though, who always think AT&T is evil. Maybe the company is, but I have received better customer service from them than the likes of TWC and Verizon, to name a couple.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.

A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.

There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
Indeed. It's (Uverse CGN) all been speculation to this point. IMO, the most likely logical reason for remove 10/8 from CPE networks is to use 10/8 for their VOICE AND VIDEO network, which co-mingles with the customers internet traffic.