dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
72
share rss forum feed


Selenia
I love Debian
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to NetFixer

Re: possible?

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
Snarl For The Camera Please
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
·Comcast

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
I love Debian
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
I love Debian
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.