[126700] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T U-verse
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu May 27 14:29:19 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <045401cafdc6$e081b7f0$a18527d0$@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:28:17 -0400
To: "Tim Sanderson" <tim2.sanderson@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 27, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Tim Sanderson wrote:
> What are people doing for business U-verse connections? AT&T installs =
a
> gateway device that doesn't necessarily allow the business to use =
their own
> router/firewall. The AT&T gateway is not just a VDSL modem. At least I =
have
> not been able to get it to work. The web interface seems to suggest =
that a
> pass-through situation can be configured and I have following al the
> directions but it doesn't appear to work. Has anyone worked with =
business
> U-verse and been able to park a cisco router between the private LAN =
and
> AT&T gateway?
I've had various issues with end-users on these solutions, and the most =
common issue is that you can not entirely disable the firewall/smart =
packet features, and there are things like the "Misc" in the firewall =
config.
They also appear to try to do some application specific handling of =
things like sip-alg on udp/5060, but it doesn't quite work right. If =
there are ways to COMPLETELY disable this stuff, I'd love to hear about =
it as it'd be useful for a few people I know, including a small business =
that is constantly fighting/fiddling with the box and would prefer some =
dumb DSL device for their pool of IPs.
This is another place where Comcast seems to "get it right(tm)" vs =
SWBell, er ameritech, er SBC, er ATT.=
