[Asterisk-Users] Issue with IAXy in Canada?

[John Cianfarani]

Although I have not really tried much IAX stuff yet I am on Rogers in
Ontario, Canada.  So if you need someone to do a bit of troubleshooting with
you I'd be glad to help.

The only ports I know that Rogers blocks are 139 and the 1433.
They don't block 25 (as I run a mail server and everything gets through)
Though they do plan to block 25 soon.

Rogers does does some application throttling but this is mostly for bit
torrent/kazza etc type traffic.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Obaid Siddiqui
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:21 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Issue with IAXy in Canada?


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.
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