dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
1151
share rss forum feed


Shield

@sbcglobal.net

Blocked website

For some reason i cant access my bands website shieldofsalvation.com through att uverse or dsl, yet I can access it on windstream and time warner. Could someone else that is on att try to access my bands site to see if it works for them?


CarbonCopy

join:2003-01-29
Fresno, CA
Looks like one of AT&T's Ameritech routers is confused.

Level 3 has no problem getting there.


parkut
Crunch Addict
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-15
Harrison Township, MI
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·WOW Internet and..
reply to Shield
the website at »www.shieldofsalvation.com

resides on IP 207.45.186.90 and is unreachable on the ATT
network. Yet it is on other networks, including Wide Open West
and my business T-1 circuit.

Ping and traceroute fail, but work perfectly on the
IP number above and below, i.e., 207.45.186.89 and
207.45.186.91

Based on previous similar situations, I believe AT&T is blocking
the IP number.
--
Hello, my name is Bill and I'm a crunchaholic...


Proud to be hosting six Crunchenstein blades, and three Foldinator blades


Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5
reply to Shield
I can help you resolve this. Can you register here and PM me so I can explain what step you need to take next. The owner of that site needs to get in touch at AT&T to resolve this and I can tell him how to.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.

The Judd Family site!


cpt panda

@sbcglobal.net
unfortunately for you it is because the 172.x.x.x ip address is commonly reserved for devices, I believe. The cause of this happening is the severe shortage of ipv4 addresses.

The fix? Nothing. Maybe factory reset your modem and cross your fingers you might get a new IP address.

Secyurityet
Premium
join:2012-01-07
untied state
reply to Shield
Looks like it's fixed.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:14
reply to cpt panda
said by cpt panda :

unfortunately for you it is because the 172.x.x.x ip address is commonly reserved for devices, I believe. The cause of this happening is the severe shortage of ipv4 addresses.

The fix? Nothing. Maybe factory reset your modem and cross your fingers you might get a new IP address.

Dude, you are totally off. First, only 172.16.0.0/12 is reserved, 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 and 172.32.0.0-172.255.255.255 are in fact valid public IP addresses.

More importantly however, 172.16.x.x is no different then a 192.168.x.x address and is perfectly acceptable to use on an internal network. Most people use routers which use private addresses for the internal network (such as 192.168.1.x or 172.16.1.x) and NAT them when talking to the internet. When doing a traceroute, the device is going to reply with the internal address as it's "closer" to the requesting computer.

/M


NetFixer
Bah Humbug
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Comcast Business..
·Cingular Wireless
I can get to that site from both my AT&T backup connection and my Comcast connection, but the Comcast connection is definitely cleaner.


--
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.


Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5
reply to Shield
Guys calm down it was just a security issue that needed to be addressed between AT&T and the site owner.


CarbonCopy

join:2003-01-29
Fresno, CA
said by Dennis:

Guys calm down it was just a security issue that needed to be addressed between AT&T and the site owner.

Well, OK, but it looks like the site owner addressed it by using Cogentco's network instead of AT&T's. Compare this traceroute to the first one in my post above. They are different after hop 6.



Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5
said by CarbonCopy:

said by Dennis:

Guys calm down it was just a security issue that needed to be addressed between AT&T and the site owner.

Well, OK, but it looks like the site owner addressed it by using Cogentco's network instead of AT&T's. Compare this traceroute to the first one in my post above. They are different after hop 6.

Well...I guess that is one way to fix it. Now we'll never know I guess why they were blocked in the end.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.

The Judd Family site!