Anyone have success with U-Verse IPTV on thrid party router?

[DanH]

I have internet and u-verse coming in to a pace 5268ac. From there the internet goes to a USG-Pro which handles all of the internet routing. I have 5 static IPs, and have the pace set to just passthrough all internet traffic to the USG on its own IP. As far as U-verse TV goes though it comes out of the pace to the u-verse receivers. This works ok, but I would like the USG to actually just handle everything. Right now the USG requires some finagling to do IGMPv3 (which u-verse uses apparently), so i would like to see if anyone actually has been successful having a third party router handle both the internet and the iptv on the same network using their own router, and not the Pace gateway. I hope that makes sense.

I did searching before hand, and it looks like some people did it a few years back, but no one was ever really clear on how they did it, and if it was really successful. I've done a lot of googling as well, and no real success stories.

 

[sfx2000]

With UVerse - put the 3rd party router into the U-verse RG's DMZ...

Well documented by ATT...

 

[sfx2000]

If one is in the u-Verse space, consider the DirecTV migration option, and bundle with ATT Wireless, and convert the broadband side over to straight DSL (or Cable)...

Each case is dependent on needs/use - but I've got three mobility lines (Work, Home, Spouse), DTV Whole Home (DVR plus two minis), and I use Cox (Cable) for Broadband, and come out ahead vs. the uVerse bundle... both in cost and capability (and number of channels on the TV side)

 

[DanH]

With UVerse - put the 3rd party router into the U-verse RG's DMZ...

Well documented by ATT...

No it isn't well documented. There is documentation of putting a router in DMZ+ or even a router with a static IP on its own network. That isn't the issue. The issue is U-Verse traffic (IPTV) uses perhaps a proprietary method of something like IGMP, and it apparently doesn't play well with third party routers. Or it just may be the case, taht it uses IGMPv3 correctly, and no one is familiar enough with IGMPv3 enough to get it working right. AT&T tech support is perhaps the most ignorant and useless tech support I have ever seen. They do not know their product beyond a simple set script that they can follow, and it is all handled in the Philippines so you get the added bonus of trying to understand what they are saying and them you.

Unfortunately Direct TV is not an option, no antennas allowed. Also i am quite happy with the service, with the exception of getting it all on the same network,

 

[sfx2000]

No it isn't well documented. There is documentation of putting a router in DMZ+ or even a router with a static IP on its own network. That isn't the issue. The issue is U-Verse traffic (IPTV) uses perhaps a proprietary method of something like IGMP, and it apparently doesn't play well with third party routers. Or it just may be the case, taht it uses IGMPv3 correctly, and no one is familiar enough with IGMPv3 enough to get it working right. AT&T tech support is perhaps the most ignorant and useless tech support I have ever seen. They do not know their product beyond a simple set script that they can follow, and it is all handled in the Philippines so you get the added bonus of trying to understand what they are saying and them you.

Unfortunately Direct TV is not an option, no antennas allowed. Also i am quite happy with the service, with the exception of getting it all on the same network,

It's pretty well documented over on the ATT User Forums - go look...

Oddly enough - Starbucks run this morning, and I ran into an ATT uVerse Service Delivery and Assurance Tech (advanced) - after talking shop, I asked him about 3rd party WiFi routers on the customer prem...

The field techs are trained to know and ask if the customer has a customer owned router/AP - and if so, disable the uVerse WiFi (doesn't impact IPTV) and put the customer Router into the DMZ as a gateway to avoid DHCP conflicts.

So... yes, they know how to make things work properly for their stuff and the customer stuff -

Problem here is that ATT is merging the DirecTV and uVerse techs into the same group, so depends on the tech you get, the uVerse SDA guys are pretty clued in - but the knowledge base articles they have access to with regards to their internal workflow/ticketing system does account for this.

One of the upsides of using the uVerse gear only is that truckrolls are free, and they'll swap out the RG and debug for free - with customer gear, the techs are limited to sorting the regulated side (their side) of the demarcation, after that, you're on your own...

 

[DanH]

Kindly point me to one forum post where someone has a third party router in dmz+ with uverse on the same subnet. I would love to see it. Thanks.
I have searched for weeks all the way back to 2009, and have yet to see one example of someone getting it to work.

 

[sfx2000]

Kindly point me to one forum post where someone has a third party router in dmz+ with uverse on the same subnet. I would love to see it. Thanks.
I have searched for weeks all the way back to 2009, and have yet to see one example of someone getting it to work.

You're not going to be on the same subnet with uVerse - just saying, that's how that works...

But going inside the DMZ, they do support that, and there - it's your playground - which is more than what Verizon FIOS does...

 

[DanH]

See if you only use the pace they can and are on the same subnet. So there should be a way to do it using a 3rd party router.

The issue seems to be in igmpv3, either at&t is doing something wrong, people don't know how to work with it, or the people who tried did not have adequate hardware. Or a combo of all that.

I'm waiting for ubiquiti to add igmpv3 support to the usg and switches. Once that happens, I will try and get it to work. I think it will if you assign partial address block of a ip range to iptv and the other part of the range to everything else. Then use igmpv3 snooping to prevent flooding. I'm no expert but using bits of pieces I have picked up from reading a lot this week, it seems in my tiny brain it should work.

 

[sfx2000]

The issue seems to be in igmpv3, either at&t is doing something wrong, people don't know how to work with it, or the people who tried did not have adequate hardware. Or a combo of all that.

ATT is doing nothing wrong actually... everything they're doing is quite legit with regards to internet standards and practices - just makes it a bit of a challenge with customer gear vs. their gear, and to be honest, they're going to push their gear, as they've tested it extensively, and they know it'll meet or exceed the service level agreements they have with the customer.

Call ATT support -- be nice and pleasant, explain to them what you're trying to do, and either they can walk you thru, or schedule a truck roll with a uVerse advanced SDA tech.

You're not the first person in this situation - it's fairly common.

FWIW - Look at the PACE settings, and again, pass-through is likely not the answer you're looking for - DMZ is...

 

[DanH]

I am not saying they are doing anything wrong maybe that was too strong, proprietary may be better, I am saying beyond the authentication which requires their Pace gateway, they either seem to be doing something else besides IGMPv3 for U-Verse IPTV data or the right people haven't used the right equipment to get it working.

Also I am not trying to be defensive, but I will tell you flat out you will never get someone who is knowledgeable to help from AT&T in this issue for sure. Tech support is in the Philippines and they know little beyond a script. The install techs from two different truck rolls both said it is unfortunate but they even have to use tech support from the Philippines when they have an install issue. Perhaps I wouldn't sound so bitter if I hadn't had to deal with them every single day since having it installed, but nevertheless, that it is all handled (at least when using the phone) in the Philippines is true. Maybe it is a dialect issue, and the verbiage is just losing something when two cultures have to communicate, but although they are polite, they have strugggled and have been honest about it.

Again, there is not one instance of someone able to use IGMP snooping to allow the internet and iptv to reside on the same network unless they solely use the Pace. This is in contradistinction to other IPTV providers where you can. End result is if you want to use your own router (whether in DMZ+ or with a static IP as a supplemental network on its own) you will need two cat drops in every room where you want both internet and u-verse. AT&T papers say they use IGMPv3 for the multicast traffic so you would think someone would have got it working if that was all that was involved; hence me suggesting maybe they are also doing something else. The Pace can make sure the multicast traffic only hits its intended targets on the same network as the internet, but nothing else can.

It is what it is, I get advertised speed and I also get the tv I subscribe to, I just have to use two very separate networks since I do not want to solely use the Pace on its own.

Also I am always pleasant when talking to tech Support.

 

[sfx2000]

The RG is doing the IGMP group management already for the STB's - so on your switchs/router, you do not need (or likely want) to enable IGMP Snooping/Proxy - this can add problems...

Anyways - take a look at the following knowledgebase article - depends on your particular RG, but the Pace has DMZPlus - and there's where one would set the port/device for the third party router..

(Pace is easy to set, the Moto's are a bit more complicated)

https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/smb/KM1006614

With the RG, can keep their WiFi or disable it - depends on needs...

Yeah, it means two networks - ATT's stuff to support the STB/IPTV and the PSTN dial-tone stuff, and your network for the broadband access

(DirecTV is similar - their IP stuff runs over a flavor of MOCA from the Main STB over to the mini boxes and wireless video bridge - I had to give them a single ethernet drop for their DECA adapter - and then I just VLAN them out to their own stuff)

Could be worse - uVerse is easy to work with compared to some other solutions - VZ's FIOS I'm told is a real pain to work with.

 

[DanH]

The RG is doing the IGMP group management already for the STB's - so on your switchs/router, you do not need (or likely want) to enable IGMP Snooping/Proxy - this can add problems...

Anyways - take a look at the following knowledgebase article - depends on your particular RG, but the Pace has DMZPlus - and there's where one would set the port/device for the third party router..

(Pace is easy to set, the Moto's are a bit more complicated)

https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/smb/KM1006614

With the RG, can keep their WiFi or disable it - depends on needs...

Yeah, it means two networks - ATT's stuff to support the STB/IPTV and the PSTN dial-tone stuff, and your network for the broadband access

(DirecTV is similar - their IP stuff runs over a flavor of MOCA from the Main STB over to the mini boxes and wireless video bridge - I had to give them a single ethernet drop for their DECA adapter - and then I just VLAN them out to their own stuff)

Could be worse - uVerse is easy to work with compared to some other solutions - VZ's FIOS I'm told is a real pain to work with.

Yeah, I had it in DMZ+ for the first week. Then I went to a supplemental network with the router given a static IP instead. Either way they both work. I agree with you though it is definitely perfectly livable with two separate networks. Sometimes though you just want to do what you think should work despite what you already have working.


The reason I originally asked is if you really search, like I did, you will see some anecdotal evidence of two or three people getting both types of traffic on one network with a third party router working.
The issue is, they never said how or if they truly got it working. It will be a long thread of people trying, then at the end you will see, "hey i got it working" then nothing more lol.
That is why i posted here, since one of the posts was from here.

Then I read stuff like this, and think yeah i might be wasting my time because this sounds like maybe a reason why it doesnt work:

"Within the IP module, the membership management operations are supported by the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), specified in Appendix I. As well as having messages corresponding to each of the operations specified above, IGMP also specifies a "deadman timer" procedure whereby hosts periodically confirm their memberships with the multicast agents.

The IP module must maintain a data structure listing the IP addresses of all host groups to which the host currently belongs, along with each group's loopback policy, access key, and timer variables. This data structure is used by the IP multicast transmission service to know which outgoing datagrams to loop back, and by the reception service to know which incoming datagrams to accept. The purpose of IGMP and the management interface operations is to maintain this data structure."


Still trying to figure out why all my posts suddenly have this:

I didn't think asking a question was inflammatory....maybe AT&T is a sponsor? That is a joke btw.