This law is missing a key ingredient that we have in the EU: the ISP need to provide you the credentials you need to access your service. No tricks where only the ISP provided router is whitelisted to get them from the network.
Hopefully that’ll become illegal and be enforced this time around.
This can be done by authenticating, then using a managed switch to swap the wall module from the VLAN with the at&t router, to a VLAN with another router spoofing the at&t router's MAC address.
I've been using this approach for years and have found it worth it as I do not trust the provided router. The downside is I have to spend five minutes going through this process every time there is a power outage, luckily there are only a few a year here so not much of an issue.
Are there any benefits to what you're doing over just doing that?
Edit: In my case, bandwidth drops from 970mbps at the ATT gateway to 930mbps at the internal router (2nd NAT). Latecy drop is higher, from 3-4ms at the ATT gateway to about 9-11ms, but most likely that is due to the Moca 2.5 that I've had to run between ATT and my internal router.
The best-of-both-worlds solution here is to have the outer ISP-provided router put your own router into some kind of DMZ, or use a bridge mode if the ISP router provides it. This basically turns your ISP-provided router into a dumber modem, and leaves all NAT and routing to your own hardware.
Other comments here mention how to put the AT&T router behind a Ubiquiti gateway and proxy the authentication to it via some scripts. This reduces the reliance on the AT&T router for direct traffic, but you still need the router operational for those authentication handshakes.
The latency measured inside is around 9-11ms, so much higher than the 3-4ms measured at the ATT gateway.
I am not doing any port-forwarding, but I can definitely see it run into all kinds of problems, or require some configuration beyond my simple skills.
I'll investigate your comment: The best-of-both-worlds solution here is to have the outer ISP-provided router put your own router into some kind of DMZ, or use a bridge mode if the ISP router provides it. This basically turns your ISP-provided router into a dumber modem, and leaves all NAT and routing to your own hardware.
The router they provided also had a tendency to both get 'congested' and drop connections.
Last, they have remote access to the provided router and do automatic, remote updates, which I am opposed to. I suspect they have other features they can abuse remotely. I want to control all my own hardware.
loled - i mean sure its no biggy, but i dont even remember when i had to reprogram the ovens clock the last time. probably been a year or two since the last outage.
Ethernet on one side, and ethernet on the other, a couple ms between them.
https://community.ui.com/questions/INSTRUCTIONS-Bypass-ATT-F...
I thought SFP is the one doing all fiber-to-ethernet conversion, so would that work?
And in the EU, does that mean you could theoretically buy your own ONT + Router if you have an Fibre Internet Connection?
I hate having so many boxes, so I have always preferred to have Modem / ONT + Router in One, but it seems to be an unpopular option around the world. As a matter of fact I would even want my TV to be the Wireless Router so I could no boxes underneath my TV.
The reverse engineering needed to get access is huge. There are people who managed to match the credentials with the DHCP request to be sent but Orange can change this anytime.
Other providers (Bouygues for instance) are easier as they do not try to do that.
What surprises me is that they have maybe 0.001% of their subscribers who will even think about replacing the box (and dealing withe the issues as this is not supported) so I tend to think that the ISP is just dumb rather than malicious.