  jbobReach Out and Touch SomeonePremium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR | No Explanations yet They still have no explanation for the outage? Single point failure? | |
|
 | | | Re: No Explanations yet Single 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 | 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. | |
|
| | |
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
|  IllIlIlllIllEliteDataPremium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7 | 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.
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: So tell me again why landlines are better? Ok, Verizon just had outages in TN because it snowed! The towers wher overwhelmed! | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | 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.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. | |
|
| b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Government regulation require 99.9% up-time on POTS lines or the carrier faces fines.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/ | |
|
| Kipper63Premium
join:2012-12-30
Nashville, TN | 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. | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| 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. | |
|
| | | Re: possible? I'm going to venture a guess that AT&T has no shortage of IPv4 addresses. | |
|
| | |
| | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | 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 handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| 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
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. | |
|
| | | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | 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". | |
|
| | | | |  SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | 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.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.
A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.
There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | 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.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.
A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.
There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either. | |
|
| | | | | | | SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2
2 edits | I have a link of my own that refutes your theory thus far »wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs#United_···_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.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.
A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.
There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either. | |
|
| | | | | | | 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.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | | SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | 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.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.
A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.
There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either. | |
|
| | | | | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | 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. | |
|
| | | 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 | 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. | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 | Don't complain via twitter Everyone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens. | |
|
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Don't complain via twitter 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: Don't complain via twitter said 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 | |
|
| | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| 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 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Speakeasy
| 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). | |
|
|  dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Re: My bet.. DHCP servers crashed.. You don't really believe DHCP is that unintelligent do you? | |
|
| | tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL | Re: My bet.. DHCP servers crashed.. yes, it is... especially when a network is too large to support wholesale network wide broadcasts.. (I.E. It's some sort of customized hybrid network).. | |
|
| | | dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: My bet.. DHCP servers crashed.. If you can hand out network wide IP addresses you have enough communication to ensure they do not get used twice. Otherwise this problem would have always existed.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| | | BINGO!!!!!!! resets every 10 seconds | |
|
| | The REAL reason for the crash Is that Uverse is run by At&t. | |
|
| |  Info
 | |
|
| | TOS covered when att has outages Sorry 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 | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: TOS covered when att has outages TOS 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | Glad I missed it. I feel bad for all those having issues but my service Oak Lawn IL, is fine. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Southern California still up Glad I still have internet  | |
|
| | uverse Glad 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. | |
|
| | | Re: uverse Our Internet is down about 12 hours now and we are in St Louis | |
|
IllIlIlllIllEliteDataPremium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7 | hmm they are very quiet on their FB page about this but if you post something related but off topic they are quick to remove it.
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata | |
|
| | Online Charlotte NC back online | |
|
 Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
| Eggs in one basket Sounds 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. | |
|
 graysonfPremium,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 down of course Uverse 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 | |
|
| | Canceled U-Verse Due 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. | |
|
| | 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........ | |
|
| | | 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 | |
|
| |  Update
| |
|
|
|
Some info on outage
Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?
·
