[ale] IPv4 devices on IPv6 network

[Michael Campbell]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Alex Carver <agcarver+ale at acarver.net>wrote:

> On 6/30/2012 09:44, Michael Campbell wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Alex Carver <agcarver+ale at acarver.net
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Got a "plan ahead" question for you.  I've got a handful of
> >> firmware-based devices that are IPv4-only never to be made IPv6 capable
> >> (PLCs, some print servers, data loggers, etc.)
> >>
> >
> > This may not affect you, and just an FYI, but...you mention AT&T later,
> so
> > be aware that at least with U-Verse, they have said that LANs (on uVerse)
> > can no longer use the 10.0.0.0/8 addresses.  There is rumor that this is
> > due to AT&T moving to a corporate wide NAT where their whole network is
> > going to be behind a NAT, and that your AT&T modem/router is going to be
> > given a 10.*.*.* address in that space.   This is supposed to happen
> 6-Jul.
>
> I have not heard any formal mention from AT&T.  My 10.0.0.0/8 is with my
> own router whose external IP is a static, public IP from AT&T (one of
> five).  I am not using 10.0.0.0/8 off of their own U-verse interface
> box, only mine (the default internal IP space of the U-verse box is
> 192.168.0.0/16 but I think it is cut down to 192.168.0.0/24).  Static IP
> is no rumor, I already have it and it really is $15/month (as quoted on
> my bill sitting on my desk right now).
>

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.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27252106-counting-down-to-July-6th-and-worried
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27139475-I-need-to-change-my-network-addresses-for-Uverse-expansion-

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.

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). (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27172336-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20120701/56173c45/attachment.html