ATT Uverse

I have had an external extension from my FPBX/Asterisk for years connected to a distant user using a Linksys ATA on Time Warner Internet which has worked perfectly. The user has recently changed to ATT Uverse and the ATA registers normally but there is now a problem.

The user can make outbound calls without a problem but when calling the user the phone rings but the user cannot answer the call. Wireshark shows no SIP message is received by Asterisk when the phone is answered. It seems to me that the 2wire router provided with Uverse is modifying or blocking the SIP message in some way. Anyone any ideas on what might be happening?

Just to add another dimension if the ATA is rebooted calls are received normally by the ATA for a few minutes then it stops working again which might indicate a NAT issue with the Uverse router.

Further investigation using wireshark shows that I was mistaken and in fact a 486 “Busy Here” response is received when the user answers the phone. It does look as if the Uverse router is changing the SIP messages in some way.

I have found several posts in other forums about similar problems with Uverse but as yet have not seen a solution posted.

The user does have an ATT Uverse phone as part of the package, perhaps this is causing the problem?

Uverse is evil garbage. It’s far more than SIP, we have had issues with RDP and many other protocols.

Until AT&T will supply the PPPoE credentials so we can use 3rd party devices Uverse is a non-starter for me.

Since AT&T provides voice and video over the DSL I am sure they need these application gateways to deliver service.

There is another reason why it is evil. AT&T is trying to suck the guts out of the regulated side of the business. We have problems ordering regular tariff T1 lines. Consumers are not informed and once moved from the regulated POTS side of the business to Uverse AT&T is relieved of the regulatory burden of the PUCO/tariff’s/territory’s/minimum grades of service. This list goes on.

and put your own router/firewall behind it. this works perfectly. The modem that att delivers with uverse is pretty wimpy. Asking it to do dhcp and pass traffic at the same time seems to tax its abilities. a few of our accounts are running Uverse, modem in passthrough mode, with an edgemarc 250w router behind it. I know of a couple that are using some low end (fvs318g) netgear behind the att modem (again in pass through mode). unfortunately uverse is using mac address registration (similar to Comcast) for identifying the modem and don’t yet allow you to register your own mac address. the old att dsl used a user id/password mechanism and there were tons of after market products, including the edgemarc 250w that functioned very well as a modem, router and firewall.

In our market AT&T is not assisting in putting modem in bridge mode.

I am going to chat with them and see what the challenge is.

I have not had the opportunity to look at the ATT router, but googling others experiences seems to indicate that latest ATT firmware does not allow passthrough mode. I think I will try a VPN using a Mikrotik box just setup as a VPN client. Client PC’s behind the ATT router are able to connect to their office VPN server by PPTP without a problem so it should work.

code on it along with the management ip address. it should be on a sticker somewhere on the modem. I think there is a problem if you only have a dynamic ip address but I can’t say I have tried it. the ones I have done have all had static ip addresses.

I tried several things with the Uverse router but it seems the router is modifying the Sip messages presumably to accommodate the Uverse phone line.

As a result I gave up and established a L2TP tunnel using a Mikrotik router behind the Uverse router as a client to a L2TP server at the PBX location. The ATA works just fine with this arrangement.