U-Verse/ATT DSL users in for a shock?

[mike123abc]

AT&T demands we change our networks

Interesting article discussing that AT&T appears to be getting ready to change their IP addresses on U-Verse (and maybe DSL) to 10.x.x.x numbers. In other words to save on real IP addresses they will NAT their entire network. So, anyone using their service will not be able to use 10.x.x.x private networks, and will have to switch to 192.168.x.x or 172.[16-31].x.x networks.

Fourth and lastly, there's the issue that, as far as I can tell, come July 6, everyone on the AT&T U-verse network who finds themselves front-ended by AT&T's NAT service, will also find services such as their Dynamic DNS (DDNS) will not work. Their DDNS updater will find that their Internet facing address is 10.x.x.x and, as far as I can figure it, that will not be resolvable back to the user's network because it will be part of a private address space.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

That means LOTS of things wont work anymore, such as Slingboxes... security cameras and other things that need a port opened to the outside world.

 

[mike123abc]

That means LOTS of things wont work anymore, such as Slingboxes... security cameras and other things that need a port opened to the outside world.

I wonder if you will get a real IPv6 number, but a lot of things will not work with IPv6... The IPv4 crisis may be starting to happen...

 

[stimpson]

I hope this doesn't infact happen.

 

[digiblur]

I don't see that working out well for any of the AT&T folks. That would break anything that does port forwarding. I remember when WISPs first started up they did this NAT the network thing and it caused LOTS of problems and there were not that many gamers, consoles, and other tech then needing port forwarding.

 

[stimpson]

I don't see that working out well for any of the AT&T folks. That would break anything that does port forwarding. I remember when WISPs first started up they did this NAT the network thing and it caused LOTS of problems and there were not that many gamers, consoles, and other tech then needing port forwarding.

The only thing I port forward are my security cams, so I wont be the end of the world, but will suck big time!!!

 

[mike123abc]

Actually after thinking about it sling and game consoles will continue to work. They open a connection to a central server that is then connected from there. They do not set up port forwarding. Well sling will be forced to use sling.com instead of directly connecting for those that set up port forwarding and dyndns, which is suspect is a fairly small customer base.

It looks like the story is gaining more traction, front page of dslreports.com now: AT&T Warns U-Verse Users of Service Disruption - Unless They Change Their Gateway Subnet by July 6 | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

Interesting $15/month if you want a real IP address.

 

[digiblur]

It would affect me since I use a direct connection to my IP to view the slingbox. But I don't use AT&T.

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

 

[DodgerKing]

What about those that begin with 205?

Is there a reason I cannot connect to my Slingbox from my work site?

 

[JAG72]

What about those that begin with 205?

Is there a reason I cannot connect to my Slingbox from my work site?

Firewalls can prevent that even if you have a public facing address.

 

[navychop]

If they're going to go thru the pain and break things, they might as well go to v6.