101–110 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They started blocking 1.0.0.1 and CF ipv6 DNS too. This has to be intentional.
Hmmm that's a fair point. But then why not also block 8.8.8.8?
I'd say there is a 98% chance this is a bug in some firmware and a 2% chance AT&T is intentionally trying to block Cloudflare DNS. I get why people are paranoid about ISPs blocking content and net neutrality, but let's not cry wolf prematurely. The technical details here strongly suggest a bug rather than intentional blocking of 1.1.1.1 DNS traffic.
AT&T routers also don't let you use a 10.x address at home (possibly to prepare for carrier grade NAT, although there is an official 100.x address reserved for that; so fuck you ATT).
I'm so sick of my AT&T router/modem for various other reasons. I hate how you are required to use it for many of their offerings (including Fiber to the home).
There are a number of tools out there for putting their router behind your Linux box. Most of them configure ebtables or use scripts to forward the 802.1q authentication packets to/from the router.
File FCC complaints! This sorry if thing will definitely get a response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were blocking 1.1.1.1 on some firmwares long before cloudflare's dns service started. From what I've read, the routers use it on some internal interface. It's likely incompetence, not malice. If they didn't want people using other DNS, and were willing to fuck with ip addresses they don't own to accomplish that, they'd be blackholing google's and opendns's public caching nameservers too. It might even have been…
It’s weird at&t is in such poor technical shape that they can’t control a single ip address, and then just use that. This was an organization that sustained five mines of uptime for decades. Crazy to see a fallen (or broken up) titan struggle with basic stuff. I mean, basic compared to their heyday.
This is likely due to incompetence, not malice. FWIW, it’s possible to bypass AT&T’s router: https://github.com/jaysoffian/eap_proxy That said, I tried 1.1.1.1 and found I had to switch back to Google DNS since Cloudflare intentionally doesn’t support EDNS Client Subnet which was causing my AppleTV’s to have trouble loading content.
Also I've heard that their routers report your entire network topology back when they phone home.
I'd say there is a 98% chance this is a bug in some firmware and a 2% chance AT&T is intentionally trying to block Cloudflare DNS. I get why people are paranoid about ISPs blocking content and net neutrality, but let's not cry wolf prematurely. The technical details here strongly suggest a bug rather than intentional blocking of 1.1.1.1 DNS traffic.
What's that saying about not attributing to malice, what is more easily explained as stupidity or incompetence or whatever? (Occom's Razon and all that). AT&T routers also don't let you use a 10.x address at home (possibly to prepare for carrier grade NAT, although there is an official 100.x address reserved for that; so fuck you ATT). I'm so sick of my AT&T router/modem for various other reasons. I hate how you are…
Hanlon's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
This is likely due to incompetence, not malice. FWIW, it’s possible to bypass AT&T’s router: https://github.com/jaysoffian/eap_proxy That said, I tried 1.1.1.1 and found I had to switch back to Google DNS since Cloudflare intentionally doesn’t support EDNS Client Subnet which was causing my AppleTV’s to have trouble loading content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I've needed IP ranges for similar purposes (i.e., default IPs for container or VM internal / private networks) I've used ranges from RFC 5737 (192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and 203.0.213.0/24). These are for reserved for documentation purposes, so it is highly unlikely that a customer would have these going in their own internal network. Not the best solution, but better than tying up a public /24 that we o…
We used to use RFC1918 (172.16/12 IIRC) addresses for the communication between internal nodes in a cluster-in-box system that I worked on, which worked great until we had a subnet collision on a customer's network. Leaves me wondering if link-local (169.254/16, fe80::/10) would have been a better option - while technically the customer could decide to make the external (customer-facing) network have a link-local int…
Cloudflare's CEO confirms: https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/991718955021623296
How is this not illegal?
Clearly, they’re discriminating against certain client devices, and were under the Obama administration too.
However, the documentation says it should work, and AT&T won’t provide support.
They’ve been getting away with this for years, so I guess plausible deniability (it is “just a bug”) can work wonders in this space.
If at&t does not provide any official explanation, what's your opinion on how people should respond. The first thing that came to mind for me is to switch over to Xfinity on my next contract cycle.
https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/list-of-blocked-por...