dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
45
share rss forum feed


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

Re: possible?

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.