Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

dslreports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 382 posts

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#41

Post by [deleted] »

codetrotter wrote: post #26
techjuice wrote: post #3

I always thought it was strange to see the example loopback address listed as 1.1.1.1 or 1.xxx.xxx.xxx in many of tutorials and official network certification guides and why they did not use a private. This is more than likely why many users are having problems because they are being routed to a loopback address on their router or another router. Hopefully network admins and engineers will choose a non public ip spac…

Indeed. I wish most people used TEST-NET-1, TEST-NET-2 and TEST-NET-3 in documentation and training material. RFC 5735: > 192.0.2.0/24 - This block is assigned as "TEST-NET-1" for use in documentation and example code. It is often used in conjunction with domain names example.com or example.net in vendor and protocol documentation. As described in RFC5737, addresses within this block do not legitimately appear on the…

[deleted]

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#42

Post by komali2 »

awat wrote: post #17
noobermin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not illegal?

That’s what I want to know. I’ll save the soapbox speech and just leave it at isn’t this why monopoly laws exist?

Unenforced laws might as well not exist.

See: Monopoly/duopoly of telecom in the USA, net neutrality protections, and the speed limit signs on 280.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#43

Post by derekp7 »

harshreality wrote: post #23
thaumasiotes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they blocking 8.8.8.8? Why do you think they're blocking 1.1.1.1?

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…

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 own.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#44

Post by RKearney »

zaroth wrote: post #35
RKearney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't access 1.1.1.1 right now since I'm connected to a Cisco router. I've never seen or heard of a Cisco router doing anything that would interfere with access to 1.1.1.1. Their wireless LAN controllers on the other hand, use 1.1.1.1 as the default (but entirely configurable) Virtual IP to use as an anchor for the captive portal. If you can't access 1.1.1.1 behind a Cisco router it's likely because someone set i…

> I've never seen or heard of a Cisco router doing anything that would interfere with access to 1.1.1.1. Well, now you have. > If you can't access 1.1.1.1 behind a Cisco router it's likely because someone set it up incorrectly. That’s kinda the point.

> Well, now you have.

Allow me to rephrase, I've never heard of a Cisco router doing that from a reliable source.

> That’s kinda the point.

Then it has nothing to do with Cisco and everything to do with the person who configured it.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#45

Post by stefan_ »

bb88 wrote: post #21
noobermin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not illegal?

Because as it stands right now, AT&T sells you access to their network. What happens on their network is for AT&T to decide. With the FCC striking down net neutrality [1], AT&T is probably testing out the waters. [1] According to google, it's defined as: "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking partic…

If you can construe some horizontal where Cloudflare and AT&T are competitors it could of course still be illegal for AT&T to block the others services simply under antitrust law.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#46

Post by wtallis »

bb88 wrote: post #14
mabbo wrote: post #8

I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.

The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.

It does seem like quite a few ISPs are little more than WWW providers with partial email functionality.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#48

Post by derekp7 »

nv-vn wrote: post #32
cabaalis wrote: post #29

What is the likelihood of obtaining net neutrality through the courts? I.E. Cloudflare sues -> judicial process -> decision that establishes a "right to access"?

Likely 0% chance. The court cannot just go off and make up its own laws because it wants to, all it can do is decide how existing laws should be applied.

It's true that courts can't make laws, but they have shown a lot of leeway in the past of creatively interpreting laws (i.e., using the Interstate Commerce clause to say a farmer can't raise a particular crop to feed to his own animals). Could existing laws that prevent monopolies from unfair business practices be applied here?

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#50

Post by fastball »

That's so crazy, I actually experienced this today.

I've been using 1.1.1.1, and today went to the library for a quick work break. I pulled out my laptop and tried to connect to the wifi, and it wasn't working. After a few minutes of troubleshooting, I tried deleting my custom DNS entry in my network settings and that did the trick.

I guess the library uses AT&T routers.

Post reply on HN