AT&T: We're Doing Just Fine on IPv6 Transition Company Says 5 Million Homes IPv6 Ready By End of 2012 While companies like Comcast have been aggressive in getting IPv6 deployed, AT&T has been somewhat quiet on the matter. That was until recently, when the company hinted that their IPv6 plans involve deploying carrier grad NAT as an IPv6 migration attempt. U-Verse users were recently told that as AT&T deploys carrier grade NAT, they'll need to change their subnet and pony up $15 a month for a public IP address to keep everything working correctly. Perhaps noting Comcast's favorable IPv6 press coverage, AT&T CTO John Donavan took to the company's blog to claim the company will have up to 5 million homes IPv6 enabled by the end of 2012: One important way we’re making that future possible is by leading in the transition to IPv6, the successor technology to the nearly-exhausted IPv4 standard. Due to the extensive amount of behind-the-scenes work and preparation by AT&T and other key industry players, the transition will be nearly seamless for our customers. AT&T already has nearly one million residential broadband customers who are IPv6-enabled, and that number is growing rapidly. With IPv6 native traffic volumes significantly picking up on our network, we are well-positioned to support a successful World IPv6 Launch today. In fact, we far exceeded the goal for participating service providers to have one percent of residential wireline subscribers IPv6-enabled. AT&T is using a managed tunneling approach known as 6rd, an approach Comcast heavily tested and discarded before focusing on their native dual-stacking approach.
|
 amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| so which is it?? Oh AT&T.
...I hope this doesn't affect me.
My "podunk" cable company (can't find jack about these guys - no website, nothing on google) seems to be directly "re-sold" AT&T. If they directly allocate from them, I'm wondering what the chances are that my connection will suddenly be switched over. Suppose the chances might also be just as good for keeping a "real" IP address, but I have no way of knowing. | |
|  | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: so which is it?? If it's AT&T WorldNet (well, that's what they used to call AS7018), your cable company's IP allocation won't magically disappear. So you should be fine. This only affects customers of AT&T DSL (or its variants, e.g. U-Verse). | |
| | | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | Re: so which is it?? That's what I'd think too... just a thought...
Looks like I'm actually on AS7132, according to »cqcounter.com/whois/
I am curious though, after running a tracert to dslreports.com, what this is about (the 2nd hop.......... it is not part of my home network...)
My IP that's shown on the outside world, however, is a 'real' IPv4 address, which is not shown anywhere on the trace.
Consequence of the fact that it's "re-sold" service, perhaps???
-----
Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms xxxxxxxxxxxx[10.x.x.x]
2 20 ms 25 ms 37 ms 10.40.4.1
3 13 ms 31 ms 8 ms 75.18.x.x
4 25 ms 31 ms 27 ms 12.124.x.x
5 28 ms 32 ms 34 ms cr2.kc9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.150.138]
6 27 ms 27 ms 32 ms cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.28.85]
7 24 ms 31 ms 28 ms gar26.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.85]
8 27 ms 28 ms 26 ms 4.68.62.229
9 32 ms 39 ms 46 ms vlan70.csw2.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.69.145.126]
10 40 ms 46 ms 56 ms ae-73-73.ebr3.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.69.151.146]
11 49 ms 61 ms 56 ms ae-7-7.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net [4.69.134.22]
12 62 ms 46 ms 58 ms ae-2-2.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.132.86]
13 53 ms 62 ms 48 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.134]
14 47 ms 51 ms 47 ms ae-72-72.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.149]
15 58 ms 51 ms 73 ms ae-4-4.ebr2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.69.132.102]
16 75 ms 74 ms 60 ms ae-21-52.car1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.69.156.37]
17 105 ms 101 ms 88 ms NETCCESS.car1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.26.16.190]
18 65 ms 82 ms 69 ms 0.e3-3.tbr2.mmu.nac.net [209.123.11.77]
19 67 ms 67 ms 73 ms 0.e1-1.tbr2.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.21]
20 67 ms 74 ms 68 ms vlan808.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.42]
21 66 ms 70 ms 68 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
Trace complete.
--- | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: so which is it?? Companies will often use 10.x.x.x IPs for their internal network routers, to save on v4 space. I know TWC does (Comcast doesn't). | |
|
| | On CGN Did AT&T ever provide clarification on why they're needing 10.x.x.x back? I know the strong speculation is CGN, but I don't see any further information than we had last week. Any updates? | |
| |  aefstoggaflmOpen Source FanPremium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:2
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: On CGN said by ISurfTooMuch:Did AT&T ever provide clarification on why they're needing 10.x.x.x back? I know the strong speculation is CGN, but I don't see any further information than we had last week. Any updates?
Please see »www.networkworld.com/columnists/···pin.html
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | All I know is.... That if AT&T takes my public IP address, and then will ask $15 to get one back, that will be the day I will call Time Warner Cable.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | aefstoggaflmOpen Source FanPremium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: All I know is.... said by maartena:That if AT&T takes my public IP address, and then will ask $15 to get one back, that will be the day I will call Time Warner Cable.
What is to prevent Time Warner Cable from NATTING too?
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  6RD problem - very few consumer routers support it
| |
| | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Where've you been? AT&T has been doing that from day one with Uverse. Even if you have compatible technology (PTM/ADSL gear is hard to find), you won't be able to athenticate to the network. You must use the trash they provide -- and when it breaks, you have to buy another one. | |
|
maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Press release! 
| |
| Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
| So if I live in Houston, TX or any other cities... ...where Comcast and AT&T U-Verse are my only options, I'd rather go Comcast if I could only pay for Internet service as I don't watch cable TV.
So it will come down to this:
AT&T: CGN with 6rd
Comcast: Dual IPv4/IPv6 stack without any tunneling
AT&T provides Internet-only service, which is U-Verse Internet, but since my Debian server is IPv6-ready and if I'm being forced to go with CGN, this will break my remote connection to my Asterisk PBX phone system and I won't be able to SSH into my server.
--
Phone: Yealink SIP-T22P + CSipSimple in Optimus V
Phone System: Asterisk 10.1; Server: Debian Sid+Exp
I'm in heaven with VoIP except for 3G wireless. | |
| | | No public IP no cash to at&t If at&t takes my public IP away, and/or charges for a public IP it will be the last day I use at&t. I will switch to another ISP. On this issue, I have to draw a line. Should other ISPs available to me pull this stunt, I will keep my money in my wallet. Sure, it will be hard to live without the services I have now, but I will adjust. | |
|  mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | See If I was an AT&T customer and this is what I was told, is that they are ready but I have to buy static IP to really use the internet the way it's meant to be used, I'd file an FCC complaint, and a BBB complaint, especially if I was a customer under contract, and then I'd cancel services without having to pay an ETF, because I wouldn't pay AT&T a "royalty $15 fee" just to use the internet the way it was/has been designed to be used.
Even when I worked at AT&T and heard of this I never thought it was a great idea, and at the time I knew they were doing this as a way to force users to pay more for the service, the sad part is even though the company says they will eventually transition IPv6 to the way IPv4 is today, I really seriously doubt that, AT&T wants to be the gatekeepers (is anyone here the key master?) and severely raise rates on their products just to please their investors. Oh well, I say let them continue, at this rate they are going to have customers running for the hills in droves a lot faster due to their inability to understand basic customer satisfaction. I just hope if they fail that they don't get bailed out...
Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  | |
| | | 6rd === Fail... 6rd is very useful for a test deployment: as a way of getting users connected using IPv6 before your infrastructure is fully up to date. I was one such participant in Comcast's 6rd deployment. It worked, and worked well.
But for a general solution, its a Big Bucket o Fail: It requires new customer-premises equipment to encapsulate the V6 traffic into V4 packets, which are sent to the ISP's server which deencapsulates the traffic.
Yet the only advantage is that it doesn't require the ISP to update the path between the user and the ISP's 6rd gateway. But this cost is low, since most of this hardware has already supported IPv6 for years and if it doesn't, the vendor needs to be browbeat into fixing things.
And 6rd also removes the big advantage of IPv6: IPv6 enables DS-Lite, where the CPE encapsulates IPv4! in IPv6 which is then deencapsulated by the ISP. DS-Lite, unlike carrier-grade-NATs, has much better failure modes, scalability, and similar benefits when the ISP wishes to NAT the IPv4 addresses. | |
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: 6rd === Fail... If AT&T's network is built with equipment that a) doesn't support IPv6, or b) has poor (i.e. non-hardware switching) support for IPv6, then the failure is not with the equipment vendor but with the complete morons who selected that gear in the first place. There's ZERO excuse for an ISP (a Teir 1 ISP even!) to not have efficient IPv6 capable hardware *everywhere* in their network.
6rd is yet another ploy to do something their customers cannot do on their own hardware. Plus, they're only doing it for UVERSE customers. Legacy DSL customers might as well not exist.
If I wanted IPv6 via tunnels, I'd've set that up myself years ago. Oh, right, I DID. (I've even used the (now defunct) Earthlink IPv6 tunnel service.) | |
| | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: 6rd === Fail... said by cramer:There's ZERO excuse for an ISP (a Teir 1 ISP even!) to not have efficient IPv6 capable hardware *everywhere* in their network I have one excuse:
Dividends | |
|
| | 6rd? 6rd is supposed to be a transitional technology for ipv6 connectivity... hard to believe at&t is thinking of using this long term | |
| | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: 6rd? at&t only thinks about the short term and customers are just an inconvenience they have to put up with. | |
|
 justbitsMore fiber than ATT can handlePremium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL | AT&T IPv6 6to4 is broken »AT&T IPv6 6to4 is broken
Sure, AT&T will provide 6rd at some undisclosed point in the future, but likely not for PPPoE/ADSL. But, in the meantime, they broke traceroute and ping to the 6to4 anycast IPv4 address. It was previously working. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·