<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Geoffrey Myers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@serioustechnology.com" target="_blank">lists@serioustechnology.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 06/07/2012 06:58 AM, Michael Campbell wrote:<br>
> ALErs,<br>
><br>
> A buddy of mine on UVerse received a notice that he would have to change<br>
> his LAN from 10/8 to 192.168/16 for some "improvements" that AT&T was<br>
> about to roll out 6-Jul.<br>
><br>
</div>> The buzz on "<a href="http://dslreports.com" target="_blank">dslreports.com</a> <<a href="http://dslreports.com" target="_blank">http://dslreports.com</a>>" is that AT&T is<br>
<div class="im">> moving to a carrier grade NAT setup, and will be issuing all subscribers<br>
> a 10/8 address, resulting in subscribers no longer having a publicly<br>
> visible IP (static or not).<br>
<br>
</div>So what about those of us who pay for static IPs? I'm on u-verse and<br>
have not heard anything about this.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know. I didn't know a static IP was even available or I would have also had one. The rumor is that for $15/mo extra, they're going to allow people to have a (presumably dynamic) IP, which I have now for no extra cost.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here's a thread on dslreports from one person who got the mail, and the flurry of supposition and such afterwards: <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27139475-I-need-to-change-my-network-addresses-for-Uverse-expansion-">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27139475-I-need-to-change-my-network-addresses-for-Uverse-expansion-</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>I have a neighbor that works at AT&T, and *HE* can't get a straight answer from anyone there. They're being extraordinarily cagey about the whole thing.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div>