CenturyLink Users Also Having Problems With 1.1.1.1 Like AT&T, CenturyLink users say they're also having trouble accessing Cloudflare's new 1.1.1.1 privacy-centric DNS service. AT&T users had been blocked for a month from using the service due to something AT&T claimed was a configuration error. Gear from several hardware vendors assigned the 1.1.1.1 address as part of their internal interfaces. Some hardware uses 1.1.1.1 as a virtual IP to redirect to when the device needs to be set up for the first time, or as a captive portal to authenticate guest Wi-Fi. This obviously caused problems when Cloudflare chose the 1.1.1.1 address as a memorable marketing tool for its new service, though how many ISPs and users in total have been impacted is not yet clear. But users in our CenturyLink forum say they're also having problems, and that CenturyLink hasn't been particularly responsive to the issue. One user describes the problem as such: quote: It is a symptom of a larger problem, which is equipment manufacturers and ISPs using IP addresses which were from formerly reserved blocks of IPv4 addresses which subsequently were released to public use. Instead of limiting their use to RFC 1918 or RFC 3927, many designers have used formerly "BOGON" IP addresses; IPv4 IP addresses which had not been assigned when they were designing their gear. Now that those formerly unassigned IP addresses have been assigned, people using gear so badly misconfigured are suffering the consequences. There's also There's also several threads over at Reddit complaining of the same issue on the CenturyLink network. Update: A CenturyLink spokesperson tells DSLReports that the problem has been resolved. "It was due a configuration error on a single device," the company tells us. "We’re investigating the root cause and taking action to help prevent it from reoccurring." "It was due a configuration error on a single device," the company tells us. "We’re investigating the root cause and taking action to help prevent it from reoccurring."







News Jump WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 7 comments



chuch

join:2001-04-11

Tampa, FL 13 recommendations chuch Member Blame the equipment... The real question is why are manufacturers using a public IP address as opposed to a Class A, B, or C address for this functionality?



1.1.1.1 has always been an assignable public IP address and should have never been used for private purposes. zerog

join:2002-02-10

Carrollton, TX 6 recommendations zerog Member Cisco GUILTY!

My brother worked for cisco and resellers for several years, and when I saw him setup a wireless lan controller with me, I was quite dubious of the usage. I immediately thought - 1.1.1.1 is not a private/reserved address, why on earth would anybody use this as an internal network address? ;0



»www.cisco.com/c/en/us/su ··· -00.html Cisco has been promulgating the use of 1.1.1.1 as a "virtual ip" for quite some time.My brother worked for cisco and resellers for several years, and when I saw him setup a wireless lan controller with me, I was quite dubious of the usage. I immediately thought - 1.1.1.1 is not a private/reserved address, why on earth would anybody use this as an internal network address? ;0