<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP... in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15222797</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:51:49 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:51:49 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15280086</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1316052"><b>spikey2087</b></A> : I'm also a vote for ports. Works fine once the port is changed. Massive speed increase. from 1k to 100k and up]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15280086</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:28:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15225837</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/939674"><b>kywirelessgu</b></A> : 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.<br><br>so many different programs use such a wide number of ports I'd think it would be pretty tough to just block em all. <br><SMALL>--<br>the answers to all lifes questions... &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.google.com" >www.google.com</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15225837</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:49:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15223329</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  SilenceGold <A HREF="/useremail/u/850592"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>It's a terrible waste of blockage when you got 65k ports to manage.<br> </DIV>Default policy of deny all, then add in rules to allow specific ports/services. Fairly efficient.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased)<I></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15223329</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:27:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15223293</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1130617"><b>deepblackmag</b></A> : 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.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15223293</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:20:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15222836</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1095658"><b>packetscan</b></A> : I vote Ports. <br><br>If you can change the port and speed increases this is likely the cause. <br><br>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.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15222836</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:19:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15222797</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/939674"><b>kywirelessgu</b></A> : They are blocking certain packets not ports.<br><br>I think.<br><br>I'm sure someone that knows what he/she is talking about will respond shortly.<br><SMALL>--<br>the answers to all lifes questions... &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.google.com" >www.google.com</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15222797</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:15:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Wasted efforts by an ISP...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15222752</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/850592"><b>SilenceGold</b></A> : It's a terrible waste of blockage when you got 65k ports to manage.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15222752</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:09:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
