Strange recording problem - Is my custom LAN part of the problem?

[robb0995]

I have always customized my LAN IP addresses away from the normal configuration that comes with whatever router I have.  I think it dates back to cable modem days when I'd have strange conflicts with neighbors, or just a desire to leave as few aspects of my networking set at default as possible for security.  Therefore, I immediately changed the IP address of my RG away from 192.168.1.254 when I got it, to my personal local IP address range.  Everything always worked fine when I just had internet, but since I've added TV last week, I'm seeing problems that make me think that the DVR software doesn't like it.

When my TV was installedd, the tech factory resset my RG, so I had to go back in to re-establish my local networking after he left.  It took a number of resets in order to get the boxes working happily with the new LAN config, but everything was fine for a while.  Then Friday night, I was experiencing some freezing and stuttering, so I rebooted my RG.  The boxes came back up fine and I continued to watch live television, DVR recordings from both the DVR and receiver, and On Demand programming.

However, it was today (Sunday) that I realized nothing had recorded in the DVR since Friday night.  Even stranger, I found I couldn't pause or rewind Live TV from the DVR.  I also found that when I hit record on Live TV, sometimes it would say "Recording" and sometimes "Television services are not available at this time", but in both cases, the recording was not in the Recordings List. 

When I contacted AT&T, they were all ready to roll a truck because their tests reported "Inside wiring problem".  I was a little shocked that they wanted to do that before trying a box reset.  When I reset my DVR, everything returned to normal (sadly, no missed recordings showed up), and their tests reported everything was normal.

So... Sorry for the long-winded report, but here's my question.  Is it just an artifact of Uverse TV that I should always immediately reboot my STBs after an RG reboot, or would everything have been fine if my network was visible from 192.168.1.x? 

I can deal with either reality.  I don't reboot my RG often, but I can make it a point to reboot the boxes too.  I have a few things set with static IP addresses in my custom Ip config, but I can change those if it means a more stable TV experience overall.
  Thanks for any feedback!

[gregzoll_1]

Why are you changing your IP scheme on the RG? You need to factory reset, and leave it. As for your remark with conflicts with neighbors, that is not really clear what you are meaning by that.

So, go back and do a factory reset, and let the RG do what it was programmed to do, in handing out IP's. The RG actually uses a sticky DHCP scheme, so no need for static IP's on devices.

[robb0995]

I explained why I change my IP scheme.  When I mentioned conflicts with neighbors, I mentioned the old days of cable modems.  Obviously, I know that doesn't apply here, but I simply have a lot of things set up to use the same network scheme I've used for 10 years without issue, so I'd like to keep it.

The RG is perfectly happy to let me set its IP address and hand out addresses in the private range I specify. 

I'm simply asking if anyone has experience with sloppy coding or something like that in the DVR software that makes LAN assumptions, I wasn't asking for a critique on whether or not you liked that anyone would configure their routers in perfectly ordinary ways.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

There should be no problem with a private IP scheme, so long as:

1. You are using RFC 1918 private IP addresses and not some other range.
2. 10.0.0.0/8 is not recommended for use on the private LAN with U-Verse, as AT&T may be using that range externally for carrier-grade NAT.

Thus, just make sure your range is within 192.168.0.0/16 or 172.16.0.0/12. If you adhere to that, you should not have any problems.

[gregzoll_1]

There is no sloppy coding in the DVR software, it is you making the changes out of range on your IP scheme. What IP scheme are you using to assign to your devices?

As for in the past, do not know what catv provider you had as a ISP, very few (about .1%) had a issue, that if you did not use a router or firewall, others on the ISP's LAN could see each other, but they resolved that shortly after companies like Cisco, started working with the ISP's to educate them on proper network setup & delivery to the customers.

[robb0995]

Greg,

I don't think you are paying much attention and are fixating on minor details that aren't helpful. Therefore, could you please sit back and let others respond? I don't care for any more input from you on this issue. Thanks.

SomeJoe,
Thanks. Yeah, that's what I figured. I know that AT&T doesn't like the 10.* private addresses, so I stayed in the 192.168 world, but in a different subnet. I didn't expect any problem, but wondered if anybody else had found any. So, it's just a thing where everybody needs to reboot their STBs anytime the RG is restarted?

[gregzoll_1]

I am paying attention, you are not helping others by telling those of us trying to help you, by stating what I asked. If you want to become defensive when someone is trying to address a issue that you are having, then I would say that public peer to peer forums may not be the best place for you.

To give you some background, I have been around networking for over 25 years, and computers & operating systems for over 30 years. So I know a little of what is going on, and that from the little bit you stated, that you are blaming the provider's equipment and software for something that you did wrong, or thought would work better than the provider intended how their system should work.

[robb0995]

No, I asked if the provider limited the normal functioning of their router either be it intentionally or by omission. It is you who have leapt to the conclusion that I have recklessly violated the system in some way. I'm sure you are intending to be helpful, but you are not addressing my question and I would rather not have your assistance. Thank you.

[gregzoll_1]

Again, if you want to become defensive, because someone is attempting to help you understand how it works, and explaining that the changes you made outside the scope of how the equipment is intended to work, maybe a Peer to Peer forum is not the place for you.

Also, being short about someone asking further info is not going to get you anywhere fast, because you need to sit back and assess where the problem lies, and it is not on my end.

No one can help you, if you do not ask all of their questions, or get angry because they were upfront with you, and stated what you did is not how the system is intended to work.

[robb0995]

Again, I'm sure that's the way you've seen it, but I think you would need to re-read my question which you mostly ignored. I would be happy to return to the default LAN config if you had some sort of explanation of why I can't use whatever valid private IP scheme I want to use. In my initial question, I said I'd be willing to go to the trouble of using the pre configured LAN config if it were absolutely necessary.

When someone with some credibility other than your dismissive, bullying, and petulant insistence that I am some sort of scofflaw for setting perfectly valid IP settings tells me that AT&T failed to consider other LAN configurations or gives me some explanation of why that would cause me trouble, I will happily consider it.

Instead, you haven't remotely addressed my questions:
1) Do all RG resets require STB box resets or is that unique to my installation?
2) Have others had any problems with using a different private network?
3) Does AT&T, in fact, advise anywhere against using other private networks (aside from the aforementioned prohibition on 10.* private networks which I was aware of when AT&T first sent out that advisory)?

[gregzoll_1]

You want answers to your questions, here you go.

1) Yes you have to reset everything if you make changes to the IP scheme. That means for the STB's & DVR's, you have to do a hard reboot on them, in order for them to take the new IP scheme, if you do not wish to use the default 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 or 172.16.0.0/255.255.0.0 scheme that ATT does allow on their RG if you have UVerse TV & Internet.

2) Issues with the private network, are caused by people changing how the RG is setup by default, or attempting to operate outside the IP scheme that is allowed.

3) No they do not advise or not allow people to use their own private networks. They do advise that if you wish to use a private network with their equipment they provide (ie the RG), they suggest using a Router behind router scheme in DMZ Plus mode.

So anything else you care to know about, or do you want to continue bickering back and forth about something that has been overly stated on these forums multiple times, and what I just stated, and stated before.

At this point, your point is moot robb0995, and there is no further need for discussion on this from this point forward.

[robb0995]

No, again you failed to read the post. I want answers to those questions from SOMEONE ELSE. But, I'll take the win of your last statement that no further discussion is necessary to mean that you'll stop harassing me now, and allow others to have a civil discussion. Yay!

[gregzoll_1]

---

robb0995 wrote:
No, again you failed to read the post. I want answers to those questions from SOMEONE ELSE. But, I'll take the win of your last statement that no further discussion is necessary to mean that you'll stop harassing me now, and allow others to have a civil discussion. Yay!

---

And again I answered your questions.  What more do you want.  And noone is harrassing you, so again since you are getting on the defensive, suggest that as I have stated before, maybe peer to peer forums are not your forte.

[robb0995]

Now that we've dispensed with that unpleasantness, does anyone else other than Joe have any experience with Uverse TV and custom private network addresses?  Did my reset experience have anything to do with that or was it just the way RG resets go?

Thanks for your help!  I'm a huge UVerse fan and glad this community exists! (well, most of this community!)

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek · Accepted solution]

The recommended method for any reboot is that the U-Verse equipment be rebooted in the following order:

1. RG
2. DVR
3. Wireless access module for wireless STBs, if installed in your system.
4. STBs

I would recommend that your subnet mask on your network is a class C, no matter what subnet you're using. The STBs could conceivably have difficulty with subnet masks other than /24. I have no evidence to support that, but since the U-Verse default is always a /24, you may as well stick to that.

If you have more complex network requirements, than having the STBs connected to the RG directly, but having your computers and network behind another router may be the way to go. This is how I have my network configured, and I do all of my servers, workstations, wireless access point, etc. on private IPs behind my own router. The WAN interface of your router can either use the DMZplus mode, or you can purchase static IPs and use one of them.

Using your own router also allows you to use your own DHCP server so that you can server your own DNS entries, allows you to configure your own firewall without the idiosyncrasies of the RG, and separates your computer traffic from STB multicast IPTV traffic.

[robb0995]

Yeah, it's not that complex.  192.168.17.0/24.  Again, it's just the labor involved in changing the things on static IP that discourages me from changing it.  The printer is set up on several devicees as a straight TCP/IP port, so I'd have to: find the old password for the printserver, change its IP address, change the network, then go and find all the places that reference it.  I don't have the vonage boxes hooked up right now, but that's another story to change those addresses.

Thanks for confirming that it's just an artifact of reboot sequence/procedure.  I couldn't imagine that they would've hard-coded the addresses, but I'm new to the TV side of the house, so wanted to be sure!