Not sure if I saw your post George. I did a couple of searches, but did
not find anything matching.
Since 13.4, we've tracked the NAT table, and the subscriber that called
this in had zero entries in their NAT table until they switched their
router into bridge mode. So I'm fairly certain they were on the DMZ.
That said, the sub is a programmer/tech, so he's not your average rube.
He called in to report switching their router to bridge mode fixed his
AT&T WiFi calling problem. We did not torch the link.
I call it NAT without PAT, or NAT minus PAT, or NAT no PAT.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 10/15/2015 1:29 PM, George Skorup wrote:
I assume you read my post? Have you ran torch on these customers to
see what the actual traffic is? I believe they all use an IPSEC VPN.
Should work through one layer of NAT (obviously does as you've seen),
but I don't know why not also through the SM DMZ which is really NAT,
not PAT. What's the term now, NAP-T or something like that is what we
all call "NAT" generally.
On 10/15/2015 3:14 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
BTW - this is with the SM on the 13.4 release (FSK in this particular
case).
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 10/15/2015 1:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
I think we have determined that the new AT&T "WiFi calling" feature
will not work with double NAT (even when the customer's router is on
the DMZ). This is the same behavior we've seen on T-mobile. It seems
to work if the customer router is in bridge mode, or the SM is in
bridge mode.
