> > 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" > <[email protected]> > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > 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 _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
