[ale] [OT] AT&T/UVerse going to carrier grade NAT?

[Sean McNealy]

Nobody's mentioned IPv6 yet in this thread. I know it's always just
over the horizon, but apparently Uverse is planning on rolling that
out this year, or at least the firmware updates to the modems/gateways
(I can't tell if the URL has my session info in there, so you get to
search for it yourself).

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Brian Mathis
<brian.mathis+ale at betteradmin.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:
>> Stephen Haywood <stephen at averagesecurityguy.info> writes:
>>> You can do a /30, which would mean the customer gets one IP.
>>
>> You're assuming you give the customer a subnet.  You don't have to do
>> that.
>>
>> You can do what Comcast residential does which is have a /22 (IIRC)
>> shared network amongst all of the area and gives out singleton addresses
>> to each customer on the network.  So you get a single IP as part of the
>> /22 for your registered host.  You're broadcast network is your entire
>> local loop, however the cablemodem does blocking to make sure you don't
>> see your neighbor's traffic.  Your gateway is effectively the head-end;
>> the cablemodem acts as a bridge.
>>
>> Cable companies have been operating that way for years!  Why dole out
>> four IPs per customer when you can just give out one?
>>
>> -derek
>
>
>
> I would guess that most people who want a static IP are businesses, so
> to simplify the product line and support they use small subnets
> instead of schemes like this.  In this sense, the telecom networks
> seem to be more "pure" than the cable ones.
>
>
> ❧ Brian Mathis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo