
Tutor
•
5 Messages
U-verse Static IP Address
Recently we added U-verse Internet with 5 usable static IP address. The tech who installed the NVG589 configured the IP address to be used. He also setup remote access to NVG589 as well.
The static IP that was configured on the NVG589 was 104.52.xx.xx, which was within the CIDR block of 104.52.xx.xx/29 so it's 8 block and 5 usable. However, any devices connected to NVG589 is not getting out to the Internet with the IP address that was configured. Instead, they all went out to 104.12.xx.xx.
Pinging to the modem IP address of 104.52.xx.xx resulted in no response. But it does response to 104.12.xx.xx. We checked on the Broadband Status on NVGH589, it showed 104.12.xx.xx.
My question is that, is this a normal behavior for U-verse NVG589 to setup with its own static IP address (104.52.xx.xx) but it routes to another IP address (104.12.xx.xx)?
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
33.1K Messages
9 years ago
If properly set up with a static IP block, the NVG 589 will handle a single "dynamic" public IP and the complete /29 block. There are actually two ways to set up the static block:
1) Forward the static address block to a router, and let it handle it (called Cascaded Router),
2) Handle it directly.
If #1, then it's up the that router to manage how the addresses are given out (DHCP and NAT are possible, though I'm not sure why you'd want to do that).
If #2, then you have to manually assign one of your static IP addresses to each device behind the NVG 589 that is to be reached.
You will also likely have to tweak the firewall in the NVG 589 to allow outside traffic to these addresses.
0
0
AngeloDuran
Tutor
•
5 Messages
9 years ago
"If properly set up with a static IP block, the NVG 589 will handle a single "dynamic" public IP and the complete /29 block. There are actually two ways to set up the static block:"
So it's normal behavior for NVG589 to go out to the Internet with this "single dynamic address" which in our case the 104.12.xx.xx address eventhough the port on NVG589 has been configured to 104.52.xx.xx. Well, this is our issue, we are unable to access the device remotely from the Internet even the port has already been forwarded.
"If #2, then you have to manually assign one of your static IP addresses to each device behind the NVG 589 that is to be reached."
We did this for each of ports on NVG589 using the given static address. The issue is that we are unable to remote access to any of the devices connected on NVG589 via its static IP addresses. Running port scanner to check for the ports that have been configured to be forwarded showed no ports are opened. Ping test to these static IP addresses also unreachable.
Twice AT&T technician came out to the property and they were unable to resolve it. The NVG589 has been replaced twice as well. We were on call with support and talked to 4 different Tier 2 and also redirected to Connect Tech as well. Next week another AT&T tech will come out and supposedly the Sales has given him a new set of static IP. We will see. If we still unable to port forward to devices attached to NVG589, we'll just have to cancel this U-verse.
0
0
AngeloDuran
Tutor
•
5 Messages
9 years ago
Accendently clicked on solution. Please disregard.
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
33.1K Messages
9 years ago
Can you post a screenshot of your NVG 589 configuration page where you have the static IP block set up? (You'll need to mask the last part of the actual IP addresses, of course).
0
0
AngeloDuran
Tutor
•
5 Messages
9 years ago
I am out of town until next Wednesday. I will get the screenshot of the config and post them. Thank you for response.
0
0
AngeloDuran
Tutor
•
5 Messages
9 years ago
AT&T tech came and replaced the NVG589 modem. As a matter of fact, he replaced it twice in one day. We no longer getting out the internet via the modem's "sticky IP address" of 104.12.xx.xx. We now connected to the Internet via the assigned IP address to the NVG589, 104.52.xx.xx.
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
33.1K Messages
9 years ago
That's probably because the second time he replaced it, he configured it correctly (in contrast to the previous times).
0
0