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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[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 _______________________________________________ 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
