I know this is the wrong place to ask, but I have some users that are
having some odd issues trying to a certain number(it's a dr office at a
hospital) on their cell phone when on AT&T.
I have had multiple people try the same number(including myself) and it
does not work.
Same number works from a l
Good Morning,
If anyone from ATT wireless that is on this list, it would be
appreciated if you could contact me offline concerning OCN routing
problems with your network.
Thanks
Mark Stevens
I don't have an android device, perhaps someone with one
can comment?
- Jared
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:36:38AM +0530, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> Hi Jared
>
>
> I am curious on prefix size of routed block. Is that a /64 routed prefix?
>
> How well it works with Android tethering?
Hi Jared
I am curious on prefix size of routed block. Is that a /64 routed prefix?
How well it works with Android tethering?
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jake Khuon wrote:
> >
> > On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >> Does an
uot;
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"
Subject: Re: ATT wireless IPv6
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jake Khuon wrote:
>
> On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent
proxies for I
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jake Khuon wrote:
>
> On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies
>> for IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or
>> if IPv6 will reach the handset.
>
> Hmm
On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies
> for IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or
> if IPv6 will reach the handset.
Hmmm... I'm seeing my rmnet1 interface on my Galaxy S5 as having
Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies for
IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or if
IPv6 will reach the handset.
Thanks,
Jared Mauch
> Let it be known that I hate NAT with the burning passion of a million
> suns. But I'm the junior in my workplace, and this is the advice of
> the head honchos. I can easily see both sides of this. I would say
> with a few implementations, (maybe 25 or fewer) NATing isn't that
> difficult.
>
> Gr
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry you don't like it, and I know IPv6 will wash all this away
>> soon enough, but where I'm working we have no plans to implement IPv6,
>> or require our vendors/partners to readdr
On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
> I'm sorry you don't like it, and I know IPv6 will wash all this away
> soon enough, but where I'm working we have no plans to implement IPv6,
> or require our vendors/partners to readdress their networks to get a
> VPN up.
Just because there are
> RFC1918 and VPN becomes non-scalable fast when you connect to lots of
> different organizations - it doesn't take long before two
> organizations you connect to both want to use 172.16.0.x/24 or
> 10.0.0.x/24 or 192.168.0.0/24, or similar). The same logic goes for
> VPN clients - if one end is p
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> Which is why enterprises generally shouldn't use RFC1918 IPs for
> servers when clients are located on networks not controlled by the
> same entity. Servers that serve multiple administration domains (such
> as VPN users on AT&T - or on some r
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
>
>> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
>> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
>> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of pr
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of problems with people trying to
> VPN in as the same IP range
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> of course, but you aren't supposed to be doing that on their network
> anyway... so says the nice man from sprint 4 nanogs ago.
That, and if you are tunneling in, it's good practice to forward over
any DNS traffic as well (or all, depen
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, PC wrote:
> I'm sure they use carrier grade NAT, yes.
I'm sure it's not 'carrier grade', but it does play one on tv...
> However, nothing would prevent them from using a unique public IP assigned
> to them for their DNS servers like others do.
sure. they could d
I'm sure they use carrier grade NAT, yes.
However, nothing would prevent them from using a unique public IP assigned
to them for their DNS servers like others do.
Using RFC1918 space for a routed destination of an ISP service (DNS) is
particularly problematic for many VPN client configurations wi
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, PC wrote:
> Why they don't use public IP space belonging to them for DNS servers, I do
> not know.
they have the same addresses used in multiple VRF's? so much simpler
for them to manage...
y me.
Why they don't use public IP space belonging to them for DNS servers, I do
not know.
-Paul
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Mike Devlin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would anyone happen to know a contact at ATT wireless that would be able to
> help diagnose a DNS issue? we are seeing th
Hi,
Would anyone happen to know a contact at ATT wireless that would be able to
help diagnose a DNS issue? we are seeing the DNS record for boston.com
intermittantly resolve to the wrong IP address, but I am having trouble
getting through to the correct people through normal support.
Thanks
21 matches
Mail list logo
