jbobReach Out and Touch Someone Premium Member join:2004-04-26 Little Rock, AR |
jbob
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 12:23 pm
No Explanations yetThey still have no explanation for the outage? Single point failure? | |
|
| |
Epicfail
Anon
2013-Jan-22 7:10 pm
Re: No Explanations yetSingle point of failure is the poor management team | |
|
|
|
So tell me again why landlines are better?OK, I know that U-verse voice is more of a VoIP service than a landline, but that's the direction that the telcos want to move in. So, when that happens, won't that negate any advantages of a landline in terms of reliability?
What I'm curious about is what could cause such a widespread outage. If it's a failure in a single piece of equipment, then it seems that AT&T's infrastructure isn't very robust. Not very comforting for something as important as telecommunications. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000
1 recommendation |
morbo
Member
2013-Jan-22 12:40 pm
Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?NSA cable switchover is causing some problems. Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% monitored by the NSA again very soon. | |
|
| | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 2:09 pm
Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?said by morbo:NSA cable switchover is causing some problems. Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% monitored by the NSA again very soon. All find and dandy, but what about the Mossad, MSS and KGB? Shouldn't we let the various interested parties install their stuff at the same time? Israel, China and Russia should be spliced in to assure fewer interruptions after this NSA upgrade. | |
|
| | | |
Skywarn
Anon
2013-Jan-22 8:10 pm
Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?I am very suspicious about this too..sounds to me from my experience that they are switching servers to run though NSA or homeland security. | |
|
| | |
to morbo
said by morbo:NSA cable switchover is causing some problems. Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% monitored by the NSA again very soon. shhh your not supposed to tell them ... your supposed ot say Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% FIXED BY OBAMA FRIENDS very soon. | |
|
| EliteDataEliteData Premium Member join:2003-07-06 Philippines |
to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:OK, I know that U-verse voice is more of a VoIP service than a landline, but that's the direction that the telcos want to move in. So, when that happens, won't that negate any advantages of a landline in terms of reliability?
What I'm curious about is what could cause such a widespread outage. If it's a failure in a single piece of equipment, then it seems that AT&T's infrastructure isn't very robust. Not very comforting for something as important as telecommunications. from reading the forum posts, it sounds like hardware/power failure at a major facility. | |
|
| (Software) pfSense Asus RT-AC68 Asus RT-AC66
|
to ISurfTooMuch
Reliability is something that comes in time, newer technologies have growing pains. Remember when Verizon had LTE outages which are now a thing of the past.
And U-verse hasn't had a lot of widespread outages, this is the first I've heard of.
More reliability comes with time. POTS can have downtime too, but they are normally more localized. | |
|
| | |
What
Anon
2013-Jan-23 11:04 am
Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?Ok, Verizon just had outages in TN because it snowed! The towers wher overwhelmed! | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:What I'm curious about is what could cause such a widespread outage. From what I read in the AT&T forum on the outage, it appears to be a problem with the DHCP servers that hand out IP addresses. They may have been doing a software upgrade on those servers and the software update bombed out. | |
|
| b10010011Whats a Posting tag? join:2004-09-07 united state |
to ISurfTooMuch
Government regulation require 99.9% up-time on POTS lines or the carrier faces fines. | |
|
| Kipper63 Premium Member join:2012-12-30 Nashville, TN |
to ISurfTooMuch
Customers can opt for POTS phone (a real, traditional copper analog telephone line just like it's been for decades) and U-Verse VDSL. That arrangement separates telephone availability from internet service availability.
Dial tone is routed to the VRAD separately from Internet Service, but both travel down copper to the home. That means that if a storm were to cause a tree to fall and take out the line between your home and the VRAD, both phone and internet service would be down even you had POTS and U-Verse VDSL. However, if either U-Verse VDSL or POTS had a separate issue of its own before reaching the VRAD, only one service might be down at a time.
Similarly, for those thinking wireless is superior to a landline, if an issue interrupts the availability of cell towers in your area, your wireless service would be down but your landline and U-Verse internet service would remain up.
Most fiber runs underground. Most copper runs above ground. Microwave towers need line-of sight within a distance range to remain connected. Each has its own pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses of quality and reliability. | |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 12:42 pm
possible?Hmm, is it possible that this could be due to massive NAT failure? I recall reading about some ISP's wanting to NAT out tons of IPv4 addresses since they are so 'rare' anymore... could it be that they were attempting to implement something like this, and it all fell apart?
Sorry to hear about all the fail. Taking it to a recent FB post is probably one of the only ways to reach out and touch them, being such a massive and impossible to penetrate tangled web. | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 12:50 pm
Re: possible?I'm going to venture a guess that AT&T has no shortage of IPv4 addresses. | |
|
| | NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
1 recommendation |
NetFixer
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 1:28 pm
Re: possible?said by ArrayList:I'm going to venture a guess that AT&T has no shortage of IPv4 addresses. Perhaps not, but they are nonetheless conserving their use by using NAT:
C:\>tracert -4 att.yahoo.com
Tracing route to ds-any-ycpi-uno.aycpi.b.yahoodns.net [206.190.57.60]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 381 ms 401 ms 401 ms 172.26.248.2
3 359 ms 365 ms 368 ms 172.16.7.82
4 348 ms 406 ms 401 ms 10.251.11.32
5 365 ms 399 ms 474 ms 10.251.10.2
6 323 ms 349 ms 340 ms 10.252.1.1
7 315 ms 365 ms 337 ms 209-183-048-002.mobile.mymmode.com [209.183.48.2]
8 327 ms 370 ms 365 ms 172.16.75.1
9 339 ms 400 ms 388 ms 12.94.97.13
10 368 ms 399 ms 410 ms cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.100.26]
11 340 ms 411 ms 364 ms dlstx02jt.ip.att.net [12.122.214.245]
12 340 ms 342 ms 389 ms 192.205.37.50
13 355 ms 365 ms 383 ms ash-bb3-link.telia.net [213.155.130.70]
14 350 ms 491 ms 414 ms ash-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.248.161]
15 386 ms 443 ms 352 ms yahoo-ic-141068-ash-bb1.c.telia.net [80.239.193.54]
16 333 ms 398 ms 388 ms UNKNOWN-206-190-56-X.yahoo.com [206.190.56.13]
17 351 ms 411 ms 388 ms r1.ycpi.vip.dcb.yahoo.net [206.190.57.60]
Trace complete.
The above traceroute example is on an AT&T Mobility 3G connection, but they are doing the same thing to U-verse in many areas (and the plan is to make NAT universal for all customers who do not pay for static IPv4 public addresses). | |
|
| | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
1 recommendation |
cramer
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 3:25 pm
Re: possible?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*.) | |
|
| | | | NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
NetFixer
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 5:28 pm
Re: possible?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
| |
|
| | | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
1 recommendation |
cramer
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 5:37 pm
Re: possible?Well, yeah. That's NAT. I was just going on the traceroute showing private addresses, which is quite common these days.
Mobile networks have been known to do that for at least 8 years now? I remember my older Cingular phone having two WAP profiles... one for "VPN" that was public IP and the other was NAT'd. (the former was an additional cost add-on. naturally.) Honestly, I never bother to look at the address a phone gets -- I don't need to get to it directly over the internet, so "it's never come up". | |
|
| | | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR
1 recommendation |
to NetFixer
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. | |
|
| | | | | | NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
1 recommendation |
NetFixer
Premium Member
2013-Jan-23 3:01 am
Re: possible?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2013-Jan-23 3:30 am
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Selenia 2 edits |
to NetFixer
I have a link of my own that refutes your theory thus far » wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs ··· _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. | |
|
| | | | | |
to NetFixer
You are comparing apples an oranges here. UVerse does not have the same network design as AT&T Wireless. All mobile carriers NAT their customers. | |
|
| | | | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2013-Jan-23 12:24 pm
Re: possible?See my post above. He is yet another chicken little thinking the sky is falling because people had to move from a 10.x.x.x LAN address before world IPv6 day and AT&T stating they are trying to conserve IPv4 addresses. I believe they just want the 10 block for internal servers to route internally and save IPv4 addresses. Try telling that to these guys, though, who always think AT&T is evil. Maybe the company is, but I have received better customer service from them than the likes of TWC and Verizon, to name a couple. | |
|
| | | | | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2013-Jan-23 3:32 pm
Re: possible?Indeed. It's (Uverse CGN) all been speculation to this point. IMO, the most likely logical reason for remove 10/8 from CPE networks is to use 10/8 for their VOICE AND VIDEO network, which co-mingles with the customers internet traffic. | |
|
| |
to amungus
said by amungus:Hmm, is it possible that this could be due to massive NAT failure? I recall reading about some ISP's wanting to NAT out tons of IPv4 addresses since they are so 'rare' anymore... could it be that they were attempting to implement something like this, and it all fell apart?
Sorry to hear about all the fail. Taking it to a recent FB post is probably one of the only ways to reach out and touch them, being such a massive and impossible to penetrate tangled web. ooops we thought AT&T was copyright infringing and seized its domain name ROFL | |
|
| fcp @spcsdns.net |
fcp to amungus
Anon
2013-Jan-23 9:47 am
to amungus
Probable. When they told me that I had to switch my internal 10.x to a 192.168 I knew there was going to be a trouble with their design I should have cancelled then. | |
|
jjoshua Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ |
jjoshua
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 12:51 pm
Don't complain via twitterEveryone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens. | |
|
| slckusr Premium Member join:2003-03-17 Greenville, SC |
slckusr
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 5:16 pm
Re: Don't complain via twittersaid by jjoshua:Everyone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens. You lose then and ATT benefits by reaping in a late payment fee. | |
|
| | |
funny0
Member
2013-Jan-22 7:00 pm
Re: Don't complain via twittersaid by slckusr:said by jjoshua:Everyone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens. You lose then and ATT benefits by reaping in a late payment fee. if 30 million people paid late they might panic actually | |
|
| | jjoshua Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ |
to slckusr
said by slckusr:You lose then and ATT benefits by reaping in a late payment fee. Nah. I have never had a utility company charge a late fee or interrupt service for late payment. | |
|
| |
tkdslr join:2004-04-24 Pompano Beach, FL |
tkdslr
Member
2013-Jan-22 12:54 pm
My bet.. DHCP servers crashed..And forgot all the existing IP address lease assignments..
When it comes back up.. it starts handing out already leased(still in use) IP addresses.. to newly rebooted boxes.. I.E. A real mess.
People who left their boxes plugged in/on.. stayed on.. sort of, until a the freshly restarted u-verse box get's a dup'd DHCP IP assignment. Then the games begin.
This type of mayhem could continue on for several days. (depending on DHCP lease interval). | |
|
| •••• |
Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
The REAL reason for the crashIs that Uverse is run by At&t. | |
|
|
InfoWe were told there are 32 VHOs are affected by the outage and the DHCP server in TX. No ETR or what cause the outage. | |
|
|
Kara
Anon
2013-Jan-22 1:11 pm
TOS covered when att has outagesSorry but terms of service will cover their butts when outage ect happen don't matter that is phone or tv same apply. Try reading it | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 4:17 pm
Re: TOS covered when att has outagesTOS will not save them from a court battle though. TOS allows for outages yes, But they might still have to "face the music" from the franchise authorities due to the outage going over 24hrs and not being nature related. | |
|
|
Mr Anon
Anon
2013-Jan-22 1:24 pm
Glad I missed it.I feel bad for all those having issues but my service Oak Lawn IL, is fine. | |
|
maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 1:31 pm
Southern California still upGlad I still have internet | |
|
|
uverseGlad it wasnt the midwest i just had someone switch from flaky cable and told them uverse is much more reliable lol. Ive seen those 172...... addresses here and there at clients they seem like they are internal to att however when accessing them via other providers they still have external access. | |
|
| |
Helene
Anon
2013-Jan-22 6:05 pm
Re: uverseOur Internet is down about 12 hours now and we are in St Louis | |
|
EliteDataEliteData Premium Member join:2003-07-06 Philippines |
hmmthey are very quiet on their FB page about this but if you post something related but off topic they are quick to remove it. | |
|
|
OnlineCharlotte NC back online | |
|
Smith6612 MVM join:2008-02-01 North Tonawanda, NY ·Charter Ubee EU2251 Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
|
Eggs in one basketSounds like the case of the 'ole Eggs in One Basket deal and someone decided to step on the basket rather than spill an egg. I've always wondered why AT&T, Verizon and the like seem to have massive regional outages that take ages to be resolved. In the case of Verizon, it seems once a year a key router in the Northeast takes a dump and breaks about 90% of Internet access that often takes nearly a day to get fixed. I don't know if they're overdue for an outage but Verizon hasn't had their routing fail since last summer.
Granted, even redundancy is capable of breaking as seen with Amazon's hosting service many times but I'm surprised there are not some additional safeguards built in to stop huge outages like this.
The lack of communication is not very assuring though. Sometimes giving customers a technical reason for why something is down is helpful. | |
|
graysonf MVM join:1999-07-16 Fort Lauderdale, FL |
Addicted for sure."Many users tell me they've been on hold for hours....."
Is there a twelve step program for this? | |
|
|
Uverse Emp
Anon
2013-Jan-22 2:36 pm
Uverse down of courseUverse is down due to major problems with cicso server equipment and it is just about all south east and west states. Not eta and it might be a long long time since it started yesterday better off going back to prev provider | |
|
|
Columbus Oh
Anon
2013-Jan-22 2:50 pm
Canceled U-VerseDue to the service outage. Just canceled my U-Verse and switched to WOW, scheduled for install tomorrow. AT&T gave me a refund for last month with few questions asked. | |
|
|
tommytorres
Anon
2013-Jan-22 2:54 pm
Glad I still have dsl and have not upgraded to uverse!My dsl working on the old tdm network is working just fine. So much for the new stuff........ | |
|
| mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2013-Jan-23 5:29 am
Re: Glad I still have dsl and have not upgraded to uverse!said by tommytorres :My dsl working on the old tdm network is working just fine. So much for the new stuff........ Several months before we switched to Uverse, our "old stuff" DSL line went down for ~20 hours due to a problem with the PPP server. I don't think this new stuff is any less reliable then the old stuff was. /M | |
|
|
Frustrated
Anon
2013-Jan-22 2:57 pm
UpdateSo just got off the line with an AT&T rep Santosh (sk0042) he says that "Currently, old and new DHCP servers are having capacity issues" and that the "issue impacts 32 VHO's. Apparently AT&T is working with Cisco to fix the issue. | |
|
|
|