[AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
I'm not really sure if this would work... but, it seems like it should. Could you put a Mikrotik in between with two ports bridged and just completely block DHCP traffic on it? From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Jason McKemie via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
The U-verse TV boxes have to get IPs from the gateway (3600HGV or 3800HGV, I'm assuming?) hence there is no way to disable the dhcp server. You'll have to keep the U-verse gateway on a different sub-net, DMZPlus another router so it gets an outside IP to it's WAN and you should be good to go. -Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I'm not really sure if this would work... but, it seems like it should. Could you put a Mikrotik in between with two ports bridged and just completely block DHCP traffic on it? -- *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Jason McKemie via Af [ af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:00 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason -- Bryan Fussell *TechWork Solutions* T: (719) 629-7550 C: (386) 275-8047 E: br...@techworkonline.com
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
I'll give this a try, thanks. On Monday, December 8, 2014, Bryan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The U-verse TV boxes have to get IPs from the gateway (3600HGV or 3800HGV, I'm assuming?) hence there is no way to disable the dhcp server. You'll have to keep the U-verse gateway on a different sub-net, DMZPlus another router so it gets an outside IP to it's WAN and you should be good to go. -Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I'm not really sure if this would work... but, it seems like it should. Could you put a Mikrotik in between with two ports bridged and just completely block DHCP traffic on it? -- *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');] on behalf of Jason McKemie via Af [af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');] *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:00 PM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason -- Bryan Fussell *TechWork Solutions* T: (719) 629-7550 C: (386) 275-8047 E: br...@techworkonline.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','br...@techworkonline.com');
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
The model of this router is 5031nv, FYI. Internet only. On Monday, December 8, 2014, Bryan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The U-verse TV boxes have to get IPs from the gateway (3600HGV or 3800HGV, I'm assuming?) hence there is no way to disable the dhcp server. You'll have to keep the U-verse gateway on a different sub-net, DMZPlus another router so it gets an outside IP to it's WAN and you should be good to go. -Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I'm not really sure if this would work... but, it seems like it should. Could you put a Mikrotik in between with two ports bridged and just completely block DHCP traffic on it? -- *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');] on behalf of Jason McKemie via Af [af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');] *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:00 PM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason -- Bryan Fussell *TechWork Solutions* T: (719) 629-7550 C: (386) 275-8047 E: br...@techworkonline.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','br...@techworkonline.com');
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
“UVerse Business Service” is an oxymoron. Comcast not much different. Used to be the big guys wanted business customers. Now they design everything for the residential customer because that’s who will order the triple or quadruple play bundle, plus there are a lot of residential customers out there. They don’t know how to cater to businesses anymore. If you don’t want a modem with WiFi, tough luck. If you want a true static IP or /29 block without some convoluted way of fooling the gateway, tough luck. If you want reverse DNS for your static IP, tough luck. To me it feels like when you go to your kids school for a parent-teacher conference and you sit in the little desk because all the facilities are tailored for kids. From: Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:51 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router The model of this router is 5031nv, FYI. Internet only. On Monday, December 8, 2014, Bryan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The U-verse TV boxes have to get IPs from the gateway (3600HGV or 3800HGV, I'm assuming?) hence there is no way to disable the dhcp server. You'll have to keep the U-verse gateway on a different sub-net, DMZPlus another router so it gets an outside IP to it's WAN and you should be good to go. -Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Mathew Howard via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I'm not really sure if this would work... but, it seems like it should. Could you put a Mikrotik in between with two ports bridged and just completely block DHCP traffic on it? From: Af [javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');] on behalf of Jason McKemie via Af [javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:00 PM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); Subject: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason -- Bryan Fussell TechWork Solutions T: (719) 629-7550 C: (386) 275-8047 E: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','br...@techworkonline.com');
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
You can use a straight modem (no gateway) with Comcast residential service. I have it plugged into a Mikrotik at several friends and family's houses. Read an interview with someone at TWC. Both TWC and Comcast's business divisions have 20% annual growth. They seem to be doing enough, whatever they're doing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 2:10:37 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router “UVerse Business Service” is an oxymoron. Comcast not much different. Used to be the big guys wanted business customers. Now they design everything for the residential customer because that’s who will order the triple or quadruple play bundle, plus there are a lot of residential customers out there. They don’t know how to cater to businesses anymore. If you don’t want a modem with WiFi, tough luck. If you want a true static IP or /29 block without some convoluted way of fooling the gateway, tough luck. If you want reverse DNS for your static IP, tough luck. To me it feels like when you go to your kids school for a parent-teacher conference and you sit in the little desk because all the facilities are tailored for kids. From: Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:51 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router The model of this router is 5031nv, FYI. Internet only. On Monday, December 8, 2014, Bryan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The U-verse TV boxes have to get IPs from the gateway (3600HGV or 3800HGV, I'm assuming?) hence there is no way to disable the dhcp server. You'll have to keep the U-verse gateway on a different sub-net, DMZPlus another router so it gets an outside IP to it's WAN and you should be good to go. -Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Mathew Howard via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: blockquote I'm not really sure if this would work... but, it seems like it should. Could you put a Mikrotik in between with two ports bridged and just completely block DHCP traffic on it? From: Af [ javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com'); ] on behalf of Jason McKemie via Af [ javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); ] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:00 PM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); Subject: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason -- Bryan Fussell TechWork Solutions T: (719) 629-7550 C: (386) 275-8047 E: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','br...@techworkonline.com'); /blockquote
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
U verse sucks. Stay away Jaime Solorza On Dec 8, 2014 12:00 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] ATT U-verse modem / router
I didn't make the call, but I do have to fix the problem. On Monday, December 8, 2014, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com wrote: U verse sucks. Stay away Jaime Solorza On Dec 8, 2014 12:00 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I've got a consulting client that just had their service switched over from standard ATT DSL to U-verse. In the process, ATT replaced the modem / router. The new unit that they issued does not have the ability to disable DHCP, which is necessary for this application as there is another DHCP server on the network. This is probably a fairly unique situation, as most routers that I've seen have the ability to disable DHCP, how the hardware manufacturer overlooked this is beyond me. Any suggestions on work-arounds? I had thought about putting a Mikrotik (or other router) in between their switch and the ATT box and just doing double-nat, but wanted to see if there was a better way. TIA. -Jason
