| Wasted efforts by an ISP... It's a terrible waste of blockage when you got 65k ports to manage. |
|
| They are blocking certain packets not ports.
I think.
I'm sure someone that knows what he/she is talking about will respond shortly.
--
the answers to all lifes questions... »www.google.com |
|
1 edit | I vote Ports.
If you can change the port and speed increases this is likely the cause.
However i don't know what traffic shaping devices they have. It could be packet inspection but that would/should not allow you to change the port and gain performance improvements. |
|
nosx
join:2004-12-27
00000
kudos:5 | Its all the same logical progression. When people find out the orts they are filtering they will go out and buy one of those deep packet inspection boxes that checks sessions for the obvious BITTORRENT protocol header in plain text and only throttle those sessions. They are trying to do it for cheap right now. We all need to impliment on the fly ipsec to stop these stupid ISPs from filtering our traffic based on content and restore true end to end connectivity without middle man interference. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to SilenceGold
said by SilenceGold:It's a terrible waste of blockage when you got 65k ports to manage. Default policy of deny all, then add in rules to allow specific ports/services. Fairly efficient.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
1 edit | reply to packetscan
If voip uses similiar packets then it would explain why only the voip port works. But I really don't know what I'm talking about so I'll just shutup now.
so many different programs use such a wide number of ports I'd think it would be pretty tough to just block em all.
--
the answers to all lifes questions... »www.google.com |
|
| reply to SilenceGold
I'm also a vote for ports. Works fine once the port is changed. Massive speed increase. from 1k to 100k and up |
|
|
|
