[Asterisk-Users] Issue with IAXy in Canada?

[Jon Pounder]

>
> I tested IAXy with my asterisk server in US, using both DSL. It was
> working
> fine.
> I gave it to my friend who was traveling to Canada. He is saying that it
> is
> not working with "Rogers Cable".  It is getting busy tone after 20-30
> seconds.
>
> Is it possibly port blocking? or any other problem.

I know for a fact Rogers does/did block some ports. Specifically I have
seen issues with both nntp and smtp unless you connect to their servers. I
have had various issues with iax on their network but it was with
latency/echo issues we were never able to really pin down, not just the
port being outright blocked, but that is not to say it isn't now.

To check do a traceroute from a unix machine and specify the port to use
as the iax port, you'll soon see if and where it is blocked.



> Do somebody has any port blocking issues with IAXy's in Canada.
>
> *please* reply if you any clue.
>
> Obaid.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean Collins" <Dean at collins.net.pr>
> To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
> <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 8:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] OT: Please comment on Dvorak's troll
>
>
> Brian, interesting comment.
>
> Can you provide more information?
>
> Do I understand from reading that this was settled outside of court
> therefore no precedent was made?
>
> Cheers,
> Dean
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-
>> bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Brian Litzinger
>> Sent: Monday, 6 June 2005 7:57 PM
>> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] OT: Please comment on Dvorak's troll
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 03:03:49PM -0600, Colin Anderson wrote:
>> > The Slashdot guys are choked 'cause he was right about Intel and the
>> Macs.
>> > While I agree he sensationalizes I was looking for opinions on
> whether
>> there
>> > might be something to this ISP/ILEC attempt to control VoIP traffic.
>> It's of
>> > concern to me, since I have rolled out a substantial portion of our
>> > company's PSTN traffic over the public Internet, and I am in Canada,
>> where
>> > everything is legislated and legislation is largely determined by
>> lobbyists.
>> > My default argument against any regulation is that I would not
> comply
>> simply
>> > because my company's VoIP traffic is tantamount to traffic on our
>> internal
>> > PBX and we can do whatever we want with it. However, I don't want to
>> have to
>> > be forced into doing something goofy like running IAX over port 80
>> because
>> > some upstream provider is looking for a revenue grab.
>> >
>> > I'm just wondering if anyone in the community has considered "what
> if"
>> and
>> > what would be a meaningful response, either technologically,
> legally, or
>> > socially. Encryption comes to mind. Also, Dundi's RFC perhaps
> addresses
>> some
>> > of these issues by obsfucating centralized directories and might be
>> modified
>> > to encompass port number in order to force "bad" ISP's play
> wack-a-port.
>>
>> I can muse about a real world experience.
>>
>> I worked for company that distributed data via the Vertical Blanking
>> Interval (VBI) of standard television signals. The company had local
>> and nationwide converage through local and superstations including
>> over-the-air and cable.
>>
>> One day we starting getting calls from subscribers in New York that
>> they were no longer getting data.
>>
>> A cable operator they had come to understand our signal and blocked
>> it with equipment at his head end.
>>
>> I found it interesting he choose to block the signal and then wait
>> for us to come calling.  We did talk with him and he had intentionally
>> blocked our signal and was waiting to negotiate for his share of our
>> proceeds.
>>
>> It was an interesting area of contention where previous contracts to
>> carry did not make clear what was to happen in this situation.
>>
>> The New York cable company basically claimed their contractual
>> obligation was only to the active video period.  In other words, their
>> 'right-to-carry' (which they paid for) only covered the active video
>> period, rather than the entire video signal.
>>
>> This area of uncertainty was clarified in later contracts.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Litzinger
>> _______________________________________________
>> Asterisk-Users mailing list
>> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
> !DSPAM:42a4f664185401807487074!
>
>


Jon Pounder

   _/_/_/  _/    _/  _/       _/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/_/
    _/    _/_/  _/  _/         _/    _/_/  _/  _/_/
   _/    _/  _/_/  _/         _/    _/  _/_/  _/
_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/_/


Inline Internet Systems Inc.
Thorold, Ontario, Canada

Tools to Power Your e-Business Solutions
www.inline.net
www.ihtml.com
www.ihtmlmerchant.com
www.opayc.com