dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1343
svetter1
join:2002-01-04
Canton, MI

svetter1

Member

AT&T NVG589 wish list

Someone had posted a wish list for AT&T's U-Verse Router but since it is more than 90 days old I thought I would add my two-cents:
1) Open the CLI (Command Line Interface) for users.
2) Allow the configuration of the 589 to be saved to the computer and reloaded back to the router.
3) Add SNMP support.
4) Be able to present usage statistics.
5) Add nagios support.

mindlesstux
join:2004-09-20
Wake Forest, NC
ARRIS SB6183
MikroTik hAP AC

mindlesstux

Member

I would settle for SNMP support with documented MIBs (or at least easy identifiable MIBs) and I would be willing to roll my own nagios plugins

CLI support would be great as well.

Though my idiotic ways, I want those on all modem/routers not just the 589.

rolande
Certifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42

rolande to svetter1

MVM,

to svetter1
Here's my snarky 2 cents...

1) A glossy veneer is more important than function.
2) Not worth the effort. Less than .1% of customers may actually use it.
3) See #2
4) Kind of...nope don't care.
5) See #2

AT&T gets whatever the hardware vendor decides to provide and then proceeds to lock it down and neuter it to meet their security and user experience requirements. Unless AT&T is willing to pony up the cash to add customized features and functionality, it probably is not going to happen. So any requests to AT&T fall on deaf ears. You'd have more luck giving feedback to the firmware program manager to enhance the base platform as a default offering.
svetter1
join:2002-01-04
Canton, MI

svetter1 to mindlesstux

Member

to mindlesstux
Understandable.
svetter1

svetter1 to rolande

Member

to rolande
Considering the box uses Linux, the telnet server is built in and it's free. Others would be willing to add functionality to it. AT&T looses nothing in permitting it.

rolande
Certifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42

rolande

MVM,

said by svetter1:

Considering the box uses Linux, the telnet server is built in and it's free. Others would be willing to add functionality to it. AT&T looses nothing in permitting it.

I know what the box already has. AT&T has neutered it on purpose. It is likely that opening up the command line presents an inability to control what can be modified and what can not due to lack of or limited role based access controls. So, AT&T gets the role based control they want with the flexibility to expose or not various config options by eliminating command line access completely and only offering a custom GUI.

So, the onus goes back on the firmware manufacturer to deliver true role based access on the command line, so that it can be exposed.

wizkid6
join:2002-03-31
Opelika, AL

wizkid6

Member

But there's a way to open it up for the NVG510. Why not 589?

Msradell
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY

Msradell to svetter1

Premium Member

to svetter1
It would certainly be nice if we could specify what DNS servers we wanted to use instead of being stuck with the ones provided by AT&T. This is a very simple request compared to most of those listed above.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to rolande

Premium Member

to rolande
*cough*TR-069*cough* I guess you've not messed with one that was still connected to the mothership. (They can, and do for some things, override what you change.) They turned all this stuff off to limit the damage the clueless can cause -- and they have a lot of those types as customers. If you're here, you have enough of a clue to not destroy your RG. (a "factory reset" will fix 99% of what you can break.)
DNSguy
join:2006-04-09
Saint Charles, MO

DNSguy to Msradell

Member

to Msradell
said by Msradell:

It would certainly be nice if we could specify what DNS servers we wanted to use instead of being stuck with the ones provided by AT&T. This is a very simple request compared to most of those listed above.

Our DNS servers are required for the set top boxes to function correctly.
The set top boxes get DNS and IP via DHCP from the RG, just like all other LAN clients.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer

Premium Member

said by DNSguy:

Our DNS servers are required for the set top boxes to function correctly.

Flaming proof AT&T doesn't know how to manage a network.

rolande
Certifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42

rolande

MVM,

said by cramer:

Flaming proof AT&T doesn't know how to manage a network.

Explain how requiring their nameservers for the STBs equals not knowing how to manage a network?

I'll guarantee that is a 100% explicit design choice and not by accident. It is another mechanism to control access and proper forwarding to the U-verse TV encoders and multicast streams. They are likely using a proximity mechanism that requires you to hit their DNS servers directly for the distribution to work correctly. When you don't point to their nameservers they lose all visibility for proximity, due to external DNS recursion.

Making armchair engineering judgements about AT&T network design and management without knowing and understanding all of the business requirements and dependencies, is like gossip. It is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. For nearly every strange configuration design I encounter, I can usually think of a handful of valid reasons that would justify it right off the bat. There are probably also 2 or 3 others that I couldn't know without understanding history and state of the environment and dependent services. I can guarantee you that the guys running the engineering show are actually quite talented and more than capable. The problem is as a technical customer you know enough to be dangerous but do not necessarily know or understand the guiding architecture principals and business requirements being set forth. You only see the superficial limitations no matter how trivial they may be.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer

Premium Member

said by rolande:

said by cramer:

Flaming proof AT&T doesn't know how to manage a network.

Explain how requiring their nameservers for the STBs equals not knowing how to manage a network?

*sigh* DHCP User Class, DHCP Vendor Class (you know, dhcp option 60) Forcing your entire userbase (many of whom are internet only) to use your DNS servers is simply lame, and yet another over-reaching means to convert customers to cash. (NXDOMAIN redirection, marketing data, etc., etc.)

I can guarantee you that the guys running the engineering show are actually quite talented and more than capable.

HAH. You actually think the "engineers" actually run anything. They don't. Marketing, PR, and Executives run the show. The engineers can draw up whatever "perfect solutions" they want just to see them poo'd on by executive order. (costs too much, ROI not quick enough, insufficient buzz-word count, cannot milk it for press coverage, too complicated, "not what any customer wants", ... TL;DR political BS. This I've seen with my own eyes in companies a 1000x smaller than AT&T.)

rolande
Certifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42

rolande

MVM,

said by cramer:

*sigh* DHCP User Class, DHCP Vendor Class (you know, dhcp option 60) Forcing your entire userbase (many of whom are internet only) to use your DNS servers is simply lame, and yet another over-reaching means to convert customers to cash. (NXDOMAIN redirection, marketing data, etc., etc.)

If you don't like it, use your own router for DHCP. The vast majority of customers couldn't spell DHCP and couldn't give a crap.
said by cramer:

HAH. You actually think the "engineers" actually run anything.

I never said that. I said they made explicit design choices based on business requirements and existing dependencies.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is the same argument I see everyone else post here about how pathetic the included Wireless feature set is on the RG's. It is a value add and you get the bare minimum for what you pay for out of the box. You want premium features, then build it yourself and stop expecting a consumer broadband service to provide all the latest extra bells and whistles. They will never match the pace of the new technology adoption curve. The engineering roadmap cycle at their scale is too long to be able to react any faster than about 12-18 months at best. Added to that is the fact they are dealing with a 3rd party hardware manufacturer who has their own lengthy engineering roadmap and then there is the basic economics that plays into it, as well.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer

Premium Member

said by rolande:

I said they made explicit design choices based on business requirements and existing dependencies.

Translation: specification from people not qualified to write them. (been wearing that t-shirt for decades.)

There's a right way to handle this, and they aren't doing it. Because it's "extra work" 95% of their customers will never even notice.
said by rolande:

The vast majority of customers couldn't spell DHCP and couldn't give a crap. ... you get the bare minimum ...

And that's the real truth. Their design targets the least common denominator, giving us the rock-bottom minimum. "Plug it in, and never touch it." However, there's no logic in locking the user out of making changes, should they desire -- there's nothing that can be done from the CLI that cannot be undone with a press of the reset button. (esp. with a few magic commands disabled, i.e. the "mfg" command.) What they get from motorola/arris is far more functional than what they allow the user to access. (yes, I realize phone and video complicates things, but as long as cwmp isn't disabled, the management server can prevent changes that would break those.)

And we're all still bound by limitations of their hardware because we cannot use our own. We can only plug things into an official AT&T Uverse gateway. Even for pure internet accounts. Until they start handing out dot1x certificates, we're stuck using what they give us. ('tho, in fairness, how many vdsl modems support eap-tls?)

vbman213
@99.38.184.x

vbman213

Anon

any chance that I can get AT&T to swap out my 3800 for a NVG589? This box seems like a far more capable box and frankly, if I'm leasing a box (which I am for IPTV), I want to have the best hardware I can get. The WiFi on the 3800 sucks lol

Msradell
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY

Msradell to cramer

Premium Member

to cramer
said by cramer:

said by DNSguy:

Our DNS servers are required for the set top boxes to function correctly.

Flaming proof AT&T doesn't know how to manage a network.

You've certainly hit the nail on the head with your posts in this thread. They could easily allow users to specify whatever DNS servers they wanted to use for Internet access without affecting the servers used for the television portion of the system. They know that but want to have Control over everything, even things that most sensible, knowledgeable users want to be able to control.