<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Alex Carver <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agcarver+ale@acarver.net" target="_blank">agcarver+ale@acarver.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 6/30/2012 09:44, Michael Campbell wrote:<br>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Alex Carver <<a href="mailto:agcarver%2Bale@acarver.net">agcarver+ale@acarver.net</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi everyone,<br>
>><br>
>> Got a "plan ahead" question for you. I've got a handful of<br>
>> firmware-based devices that are IPv4-only never to be made IPv6 capable<br>
>> (PLCs, some print servers, data loggers, etc.)<br>
>><br>
><br>
> This may not affect you, and just an FYI, but...you mention AT&T later, so<br>
> be aware that at least with U-Verse, they have said that LANs (on uVerse)<br>
> can no longer use the <a href="http://10.0.0.0/8" target="_blank">10.0.0.0/8</a> addresses. There is rumor that this is<br>
> due to AT&T moving to a corporate wide NAT where their whole network is<br>
> going to be behind a NAT, and that your AT&T modem/router is going to be<br>
> given a 10.*.*.* address in that space. This is supposed to happen 6-Jul.<br><br>
I have not heard any formal mention from AT&T. My <a href="http://10.0.0.0/8" target="_blank">10.0.0.0/8</a> is with my<br>
own router whose external IP is a static, public IP from AT&T (one of<br>
five). I am not using <a href="http://10.0.0.0/8" target="_blank">10.0.0.0/8</a> off of their own U-verse interface<br>
box, only mine (the default internal IP space of the U-verse box is<br>
<a href="http://192.168.0.0/16" target="_blank">192.168.0.0/16</a> but I think it is cut down to <a href="http://192.168.0.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.0.0/24</a>). Static IP<br>
is no rumor, I already have it and it really is $15/month (as quoted on<br>
my bill sitting on my desk right now).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They only sent notices to people using 10.* as their internal LAN space that they could see that that's what you're doing. A buddy of mine got this notice.</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27252106-counting-down-to-July-6th-and-worried">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27252106-counting-down-to-July-6th-and-worried</a></div><div><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>The worry for many, is that my uverse router is visible to the external internet right now. As of 7-Jul, it may not be if they put all the uverse customer routers behind some mega-NAT and start giving them 10.* addresses, and they're damn sure not going to port forward from that to my uverse box. For me, running something that I need to get to from outside, this is a bit of a disaster. Or, I can pay $15/mo more for the exact same service and capabilities I have now. Yay.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The $15 rumor is not for a static IP, but rather for *ANY* IP that can be seen from the internet. I don't think they are even saying it's static (which doesn't bother me since I use a dynamic dns service for that anyway). (<a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27172336-">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27172336-</a>)</div>
<div><br></div></div>