dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed

MikeVx

join:2005-04-02
Southgate, MI

1 recommendation

reply to matt832

Re: I need to change my network addresses for Uverse expansion?

said by matt832:

OK, can anyone tell me why the addresses I use on an INTERNAL setup has any effect on ATT? I'm a bit puzzled and upset about this. At this point I have well over 2 dozen net enabled items, 98% with fixed IP addresses. The last time I redid my network it took me many hours to assign and update my equipment, I have ZERO desire to do it again.

My guess is that they will be NATing out your area and they are using the 10.x range to do it. The comment about "to accommodate future growth" implies that they may be running out of IPv4 addresses for your section of network, and it may be easier to NAT off your section than to juggle around address blocks to assign new externally-reachable ones to your area.

Beyond that, they probably perceive some other benefits to this. I expect that it would complicate the lives of those using most P2P programs, as they would be limited to outbound connections only unless it proves possible to discover other nodes inside the NATed range.

I would also expect this to mess with anyone using any sort of small server, as some people use mail servers at home and such. I have some mini-server processes to allow point-to-point sending and receiving of files without involving a third-party host. This sort of tactic would break that unless I could make the transfers work over IPv6. So far, there is no sign of that happening here, but I'll keep watch. Oh frack, this would break my IPv6 tunnel. I REALLY hope they go to native v6 before anything like this happens here.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13

1 recommendation

said by MikeVx:

Oh frack, this would break my IPv6 tunnel. I REALLY hope they go to native v6 before anything like this happens here.

The closest thing to native IPv6 we're ever going to see is the 6rd they're rolling out. If you have a NVG510 there's a good chance you're already live. If not, bring your own router and see this thread.

/M


Mentor10

@sbcglobal.net
This makes no sense whatsoever. What does it matter to att what is done on the inside of the router? To say that effects what is going on outside the router is a direct contradiction to the function of nat to begin with. This is crap!


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to MikeVx
said by MikeVx:

Oh frack, this would break my IPv6 tunnel. I REALLY hope they go to native v6 before anything like this happens here.

Not very likely. If IPv6 is important for you, you might want to start thinking about an alternative provider for your IPv6 traffic.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13
reply to Mentor10
said by Mentor10 :

What does it matter to att what is done on the inside of the router? To say that effects what is going on outside the router is a direct contradiction to the function of nat to begin with.

Because if when they deploy carrier grade NAT they will most likely start assigning 10.x addresses to the WAN side of the router, and having the same address range on both the WAN and LAN sides will really confuse a router.

/M


GNH
tolle causam
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
Exactly, and they are. My mobile's (Hsdpa+) internal IPs are: 10.153.xxx.xxx, 10.164.xxx.xxx


ORR

@sbcglobal.net
I also got this message. GNH, does this have any effect an you being able to reach your LAN from outside the network (say for remote desktop, or security IP cameras, or the like)? Any issues with using VPN?


GNH
tolle causam
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
No problems, but I set my gateway to use Class B 172.16 space. Sounds like the issue is related to those using Class A 10. for their private gateway address space.


SteveB

@portla.org
reply to ORR
If they are changing our WAN IP to a non-routable 10.x.x.x network, which is the ONLY reason I can think of as to why we need to change our internal LAN segment, then we are doomed. If they do this, forget access to your network from outside, like if you have an email server, a web site, FTP, RDP, or even a Sling Box. I have all the above, and I can't get anyone on the phone who has a clue about networking or what the purpose of the change over is. I either need a static public IP address on my WAN or I need to go shopping for another provider. What a pain!


SteveB

@portla.org
I just spoke to AT&T again. I got somebody who was fairly knowledgeable and he says that on July 6th, they are switching over to IPV6. Also, the reason for changing from a 10.x.x.x network to 192.168.x.x is because IPV6 can't nat to that segment. I don't know anything about IPV6, so I have to take his word for it. However, the really bad news, is that for anyone like myself that frequently access the home network from the Internet, or has a mail server, web site, FTP, security cams, etc., I believe we've lost that access. I told him that I pity their support desk on July 6th and beyond because there's going to be a lot of broken customer networks and I guarantee there is NOBODY at AT&T who can get on a phone and tell you how to fix the myriad of issues that will arise. Road Runner is getting a call from me this week...

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

I just spoke to AT&T again. I got somebody who was fairly knowledgeable and he says that on July 6th, they are switching over to IPV6. Also, the reason for changing from a 10.x.x.x network to 192.168.x.x is because IPV6 can't nat to that segment.

Excuse me while I clean the Mt.Dew off my monitor.

That is the single largest load of horse shit I've yet seen. They are not "switching to IPv6" -- AT&T's dumbass plan for IPv6 is 6rd TUNNELING. (even AT&T COMMERCIAL services have laughable IPv6 deployment) IPv6 and IPv4 are completely different networks. There is no "NAT" involved... v4 and v6 hosts cannot directly communicate; it takes application aware proxies, no amount of header rewriting can make the two compatible.

The only plausable reason for restricting 10/8 is the (idiotic) deployment of Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) inwhich customers no longer are assigned public IP addresses. (from the same people who hand out static /29's for free to anyone who asks... this makes no sense.) CGN requires some rather beafy hardware, and opens them to a slew of legal issues (tracking the illegal activities of the now-nat'd customers.) This will piss off a lot of people, and *will* cost them customers.


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net


SteveB

@portla.org
reply to cramer
OK, so you're not sure exactly what they are doing either, so who is, or how do we find out what's happening July 6th? If the guy I talked to gave me bad info, where do I ( we ) go from there? I'm not waiting til July just find out what happens...


RexHavoc

@sbcglobal.net
I was just told by AT&T 2nd tier support that this is indeed CGN, and that nat'ed customers will no longer be assigned a public IP address. You will be at least one layer, if not two layers down, which seems to also mean that access to services inside your home network will not be available to you outside, as well as breaking VPN. They have told me that for $15/month I can get a private IP address. Maybe that is the key here, getting another $15/month? SIGH. Maybe times to switch back to Comcast!

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to SteveB
I would say very few know exactly what is going on, and even fewer why. The tech talking about IPv6 was just making shit up to get you off the phone. (far too common in call centers.)

IPv4 and IPv6 are as functionally different as Appletalk and IPX. Dual stack is not "the simplest way", it's pretty much the *only* way... You either run an IPv6 stack or not; to talk to other v6 hosts, you have to run a v6 stack. v4 talks to v4; v6 talks to v6. If I'm speaking Gaelic and you're speaking Swahili, we aren't communicating.

said by RexHavoc :

I was just told by AT&T 2nd tier support that this is indeed CGN...

That's the only thing that makes sense. But not when you notice how many people have been *GIVEN* static address blocks simply by asking. Now they're trotting out the $15/month "static IP" service that used to be available on DSL??? (which they dropped several years ago -- residential DSL customers cannot(?) get a static IP for any price.)


wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1
Residential DSL customers can purchase a block of 5 static public ip's
Residential DSL customers in the bellsouth region cannot obtain a single static public ip

Zoder

join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
There's a lot of FUD in this thread. With only 6 weeks to go you would think David can get us the facts. If you're reading this, will you post here and let us know if we'll still have a public accessible IP address?

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to wayjac
Their policies have changed several times over the years. *I* have a single static IP as part of my residential dsl service. It was an included extra to "Extreme 6.0" back when I ordered it -- $15/month otherwise. Some time after that, they stopped including it for free by default -- everyone had to specifically ask and pay for it. Some time after that, they stopped offering static addresses entirely. After that, they were available again if you knew to ask for it.

Uverse, apparently, has always been an if-you-know-to-ask. And I've never heard of anyone being charged for their static address block. Something that costs business customers $30/mo, and isn't offered to residential dsl at all, is free to every residential uverse account. (or *was*)


wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1
said by cramer:

Their policies have changed several times over the years

This is normal when one company is purchased by another
said by cramer:

*I* have a single static IP as part of my residential dsl service. It was an included extra to "Extreme 6.0" back when I ordered it -- $15/month otherwise

Bellsouth had a single static public ip option, att has no option like this that's why it's not available now
said by cramer:

Uverse, apparently, has always been an if-you-know-to-ask. And I've never heard of anyone being charged for their static address block. Something that costs business customers $30/mo, and isn't offered to residential dsl at all, is free to every residential uverse account. (or *was*)

Uverse has never had a no cost single static public ip option, but the uverse public ip hardly ever changes
uverse subscribers can order a block of static public ip's and it is not a free option


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13

1 recommendation

reply to Zoder
said by Zoder:

There's a lot of FUD in this thread. With only 6 weeks to go you would think David can get us the facts. If you're reading this, will you post here and let us know if we'll still have a public accessible IP address?

Even "an executive director from the 'Office of the President at AT&T'" wouldn't give a guy from Network World a straight answer saying only "With all Internet service providers facing a shortage of IPv4 addresses, we are upgrading U-verse Internet customers' equipment to help us maximize the use of these addresses." He then digs up an article from 2010 stating "An AT&T executive did speak at Google's IPv6 Implementers Conference in June, explaining that the carrier will transition its broadband network to IPv6 using 6rd, a technique for tunneling IPv6 traffic over an IPv4 network that was pioneered by French ISP Free. / 'With our high-speed Internet access -- the U-verse and DSL product sets -- our plan is to go carrier-grade NAT to reduce IPv4 consumption and 6rd for IPv6 end content over our network ... We're not doing a trial yet. Not until 2011."

So, is this network address update needed for a video service? Perhaps. The signs are pointing to CGN however...

/M


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Zoder
said by Zoder:

There's a lot of FUD in this thread. With only 6 weeks to go you would think David can get us the facts. If you're reading this, will you post here and let us know if we'll still have a public accessible IP address?

I wouldn't call it FUD, as FUD usually is intentional disinformation by a company towards its customers (as perfected by IBM decades ago).

What I see here is an information vacuum that is being filled by AT&T's customers trying to figure out what is about to happen to them.


gerick

join:2001-01-17
San Antonio, TX
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to mackey
I would bet money that CGN/LSN is coming. Just don't know when.

Also, I see that World IPv6 Launch is just a few days away. Home networking equipment manufacturers, and web companies around the world are coming together to permanently enable IPv6 for their products and services by 6 June 2012. And ATT is one of the participants.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13

1 recommendation

said by gerick:

I would bet money that CGN/LSN is coming. Just don't know when.

My magic 8-ball is telling me it's going to be on or about July 6th

said by gerick:

Also, I see that World IPv6 Launch is just a few days away. Home networking equipment manufacturers, and web companies around the world are coming together to permanently enable IPv6 for their products and services by 6 June 2012. And ATT is one of the participants.

The surprising thing is of the big 4 (Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T), AT&T is the only one to have deployed IPv6 to a significant percentage of customers, and of the 2 who've deployed at all (Comcast, AT&T), T's the only one to offer something bigger then a single /64. I really did not expect that.

/M

Zoder

join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

1 recommendation

reply to mackey
said by mackey:

Even "an executive director from the 'Office of the President at AT&T'" wouldn't give a guy from Network World a straight answer saying only "With all Internet service providers facing a shortage of IPv4 addresses, we are upgrading U-verse Internet customers' equipment to help us maximize the use of these addresses." He then digs up an article from 2010 stating "An AT&T executive did speak at Google's IPv6 Implementers Conference in June, explaining that the carrier will transition its broadband network to IPv6 using 6rd, a technique for tunneling IPv6 traffic over an IPv4 network that was pioneered by French ISP Free. / 'With our high-speed Internet access -- the U-verse and DSL product sets -- our plan is to go carrier-grade NAT to reduce IPv4 consumption and 6rd for IPv6 end content over our network ... We're not doing a trial yet. Not until 2011."

So, is this network address update needed for a video service? Perhaps. The signs are pointing to CGN however...

/M

Thanks for the link. I guess I was too optimistic that AT&T would be forthcoming since we're going to find out after July 6 anyways. So why be so cagey?


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13

1 recommendation

I can think of 2 possibilities:

1) Marketing is trying to keep people from worrying about whether or not their internet connection will work with CGN and start looking into other providers. Nobody wants to be the first one to implement something like this; it's gonna be TWC's caps all over again.

2) Management has not finalized a decision and is preparing just in case they decide to implement it

/M

Zoder

join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
I have to remote in for work. I'll be more pissed if I try to do so one day and it doesn't work than having advanced notice and being able to make alternate plans such as switching isps. I feel bad for the phone reps that day if it does happen.