Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 public DNS broken w/ AT&T CPE

Jason Kuehl jason.w.kuehl at gmail.com
Mon Apr 2 15:16:17 UTC 2018


Just like "S3 dependency check day" Thus begins "National 1.1.1.1 change
week" I've already around a few peaces of equipment sets with 1.1.1.1

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Matt Hoppes <
mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Seeing as how 1.1.1.1 isn’t suppose to be routed I’m not surprised this is
> causing odd issues.
>
> > On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:03, Darin Steffl <darin.steffl at mnwifi.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am behind a Calix router at home for my ISP and 1.1.1.1 goes to my
> router
> > and not any further. When I enter the IP into my browser, it opens the
> > login page for my router. So it appears 1.1.1.1 is used as a loopback in
> my
> > Calix router.
> >
> > 1.0.0.1 goes to the proper place fine.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Jeremy L. Gaddis <lists-nanog at gadd.is>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> If anyone at 7018 wants to pass a message along to the correct folks,
> >> please let them know that Cloudflare's new public DNS service (1.1.1.1)
> >> is completely unusable for at least some of AT&T's customers.
> >>
> >> There is apparently a bug with some CPE (including the 5268AC). From
> >> behind such CPE, the services at 1.1.1.1 are completely unreachable,
> >> whether via (ICMP) ping, DNS, or HTTPS.
> >>
> >> Using the 5268AC's web-based diagnostic tools, pinging 1.1.1.1 returns
> >> the following results:
> >>
> >>  ping successful: icmp seq:0, time=2.364 ms
> >>  ping successful: icmp seq:1, time=1.085 ms
> >>  ping successful: icmp seq:2, time=1.160 ms
> >>  ping successful: icmp seq:3, time=1.245 ms
> >>  ping successful: icmp seq:4, time=0.739 ms
> >>
> >> RTTs to the CPE's default gateway are, at minimum, ~20 ms.
> >>
> >> A traceroute (using the same web-based diagnostic tool built-in to the
> >> CPE) reports, simply:
> >>
> >>  traceroute 1.1.1.1 with: 64 bytes of data
> >>
> >>  1: 1.1.1.1(1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com), time=0 ms
> >>
> >> I haven't bothered to report this to AT&T through the standard customer
> >> support channels (for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has
> >> ever called AT&T's consumer/residential technical support) but if anyone
> >> at AT&T wants to pass the info along to the appropriate group, it would
> >> certainly be appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Jeremy
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeremy L. Gaddis
> >>
> >>
> >> "The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is
> >> $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you
> >> want, send it the way the spec says to."  --John Levine
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Darin Steffl
> > Minnesota WiFi
> > www.mnwifi.com
> > 507-634-WiFi
> > <http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> Like us on Facebook
> > <http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>
>



-- 
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.kuehl at gmail.com


More information about the NANOG mailing list