Ill just leave this guy on internal IP space
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, jeff pastuck
wrote:
> The 320 CPE's have a known open DNS resolver issue (responding to DNS
> queries from external hosts). I have seen some of the NAT enabled CPE's
> choke on the external DNS requests and we then see
The 320 CPE's have a known open DNS resolver issue (responding to DNS
queries from external hosts). I have seen some of the NAT enabled CPE's
choke on the external DNS requests and we then see 95% packet loss to them.
Most of our 320 CPE's operate in bridge mode.
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:38 AM,
Does 320 have 'remote configuration interface' in the NAT tab? I think this
is equivalent to 'separate management interface'. I'm not very familiar
with the 320 line... or maybe change it to a random nonstandard port just
for said customer and then firewall the port at the tower/edge?
On Tue, May
I wouldn't recommend doing it there are not any known security issues
that I can speak of. I do know however that your performance on that CPE
will be go down significantly and I do know outside request can kill
them. I guess a sort of vulnerability.
On 5/9/2016 11:41 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is irritating
me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want to put it in
NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can be identified in
complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the 320 CPE I should be
a
