British Telecom BT 220v router blocking incoming http access ?

(Partly in response to Neil's suggested solution to my incoming traffic problem, in thread 'Wake when the modem detects a ring ...' )
I am assured by my ISP (BT or British Telecom: previously able to give good advice on my non-Windoze, non-Explorer, non-USB configuration, so stuck with them) that there is no firewall on my BT 220V router and that there is no blocking or filtering of incoming traffic by BT for domestic (or business) customers.
However, inspection of the router configuration and BT's own Quick Start guide reveals that IP filtering can indeed be set up, the default appearing to be that filtering is Enabled for inbound traffic.
The latest BT tech-help person ensured me that these are 'factory settings' which cannot be changed (and indeed I can't and don't want to), but did not know what they do. No doubt they are for security & firewall purposes: anyone know what kind of traffic they filter, and has anyone had this problem (no external access to shared folders or personal web site folders, timeouts rather than 404 errors) with a 220v ?
I've been round every other possible explanation and this is all that is left. Completely stuck otherwise.
iBook G4, 256MB ram, Aiport Extreme, built-in ethernet, 133MHz Mac OS X (10.3.9)

I'll shed some light -- if you try this in a forum OTHER than an iPhone forum, perhaps you may get more responses.

Similar Messages

Local router blocking incoming remote assistance request

I have a user who recently moved. they received new equipment from their ISP. I use to be able to make remote assistance connections to their computer using a popular system center configuration manager remote tool. Now i can't get past the handshake when i try to connect. If he has split tunneling enabled would the new router block incoming traffic? I know by default most of the router's firewall will block all incoming traffic (if enabled). does this apply to VPN traffic?

Hi, if the VPN terminates on an IOS router, then the split tunneling does not "block" anything. It simply decides which traffic is sent through the tunnel and which traffic is sent in clear text (as in Internet traffic).
If the router has ACLs on the outside interface, that could be blocking the traffic (even VPN traffic).
Make sure the desired traffic is part of the split tunneling rule and that if there's an ACL, it allows the traffic to pass.

ISA570 Block Non-HTTP Access by FQDN instead of IP Address

Does anyone know a way to block any access to a site by FQDN instead of its ip address on the ISA500 series devices? I know you can block website access with Web URL filtering using FQDNs, but what it you want to block non-HTTP traffic to a site that has either multiple IPs or dynamic IPs? I typically use Address Management to setup sites that I want to limit or block, but you have to define specific IPs or ranges and that doesn't always work especially if host IPs are dynamic. Also, host static IPs can change over time so even if you define them in Address Management you have to periodically audit them to make sure they are still correct.
This is not only an issue with blocking sites, but also in trying to define QoS policies as those use addresses defined in Address Management which again use specific IPs or ranges. I am just trying to find a more reliable, long term, method of doing these types of management activities on the ISA500 devices.
Thanks for any advice.

I am pretty sure you cannot do this on ISA. I think you could use opendns.com to accomplish blocking non-http sites by FQDN. You could do blocking and QOS by FQDN with what Cisco generally considers the replacement for this product, the Meraki MX60.

Blocking incoming collect calls in the voice gateway

Hello
I am using a C3825 router and I want to block incoming collect calls. I tried the command "double-answer" under cas-custom but it is not working. Does anyone have an alternative? I am using an E1 R2 digital.
Thank you
Marcos

Jonathad,
OP is not in the US, and does not have ISDN, has E1 R2 instead
E1 R2 has a method to block collect calls called double-answer. This method is supported and documented by Cisco.
But for some reason it doesn't work for OP.
In these case, it is necessary to involve an experienced consultant, if not TAC escalation directly.

Exchange 2007 Block incoming meeting requests?

Hello,
Is there any way to block incoming meeting requests on an Exchange 2007 server and have it send a message back saying the server doesn't accept said requests? I know it can be done in Outlook with a rule but we would like to block them
at the server for any requests, not just a couple of users.
Thanks

You could look at hub transport rules. I cant remember if 2007 allowed a rule based on a message class.
I would also disable the processing of external meeting requests for mailboxes:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996340(v=exchg.80).aspx
Use the ProcessExternalMeetingMessages parameter to specify whether to process meeting requests originating outside the Exchange organization
Twitter!: Please Note: My Posts are provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.

Blocking incoming collect calls

Hi,
This was asked by one of my students. Can anyone help answer it?
"I would like to block incoming collect calls in the voice gateway,
but I'm using R2 digital E1. I need to check the destinations numbers, and depends of the number, It’ll accept or reject the collect calls.
On the last PVT of Unified communications in Brazil, some people commented of to do this block do with TCL scripts with Double-Answer, but I don’t know much about TCL script."
Thanks, Janine

Janine,
if i understand your requirement correctly..you can reject the call using translation rule and mapping to dial-peer.
Reject call on voice router
voice translation-rule 100
rule 1 reject /xxxxxxxxxx/
voice translation-profile reject
translate calling 100
voice-port x/x/x:23
translation-profile incoming reject
First, create a translation rule that will identify the incoming call:
voice translation-rule 100
rule 1 reject /2124290000/
rule 2 reject /4089988472/
voice translation-profile call_block_profile
translate calling 100
dial-peer voice 111 pots
incoming called-number .
call-block translation-profile incoming call_block_profile
call-block disconnect-cause incoming invalid_number
Then place that translation profile into your inbound dial-peer. It you don't have one defined, create one using the incoming called-number dial-peer command, as so:
The call-block command allows the gateway to give a disconnect message rather than just a fast busy.

Router Blocking a Website

So a few days ago my router seems to have blocked me from visiting a website. www.tfaw.com. I have tried everything calling linksys completly reseting my router updating firmware. Making sure everything is set correctly. Changing the MTU to 1400 and lower. Still nothing. Called my service provider who walked through fixes in internet options making sure it wasnt something blocking the site. It looks like this issue is fairly uncommon but I have seen people having the same issues as in this forum posts.
http://www.webmasterworld.com/webmaster/3781120.htm
http://forums.verizon.com/t5/FiOS-Internet/router-blocking-websites/td-p/293627
However nobody seems to be able to offer any advice that actually fixes the problem. I feel like im going round and round not finding an actual reason why im having access blocked from the site.
I tried connecting through a proxy and it let me access the website from this computer. I know it has to have something to do with my network/router, I can access the site on both of my phones and as soon as I turn on my wireless on the phones it does not allow me access to the website.
Does anyone know why this might be happening?? As I can tell nobody has actually been able to tell anyone why or how to fix this issue
Please Help!

Here is the Tracer
Tracing route to www.tfaw.com [70.96.128.245] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2     9 ms     8 ms     8 ms 10.102.224.1
3    26 ms    11 ms     8 ms dtr01thdlor-tge-0-1-0-1.thdl.or.charter.com [96. 34.105.152]
4    10 ms     7 ms     8 ms acr01thdlor-tge-3-1.thdl.or.charter.com [96.34.1 04.235]
5    12 ms    24 ms    14 ms acr01wlwlwa-vln-15.wlwl.wa.charter.com [96.34.10 4.49]
6    14 ms    15 ms    12 ms dtr04knwcwa-tge-0-0-0-3.knwc.wa.charter.com [96. 34.104.6]
7    13 ms    15 ms    12 ms dtr03knwcwa-tge-0-0-0-4.knwc.wa.charter.com [96. 34.104.57]
8    15 ms    15 ms    25 ms dtr01yakmwa-bue-3.yakm.wa.charter.com [96.34.105 .162]
9    18 ms    19 ms    19 ms dtr01wntcwa-bue-2.wntc.wa.charter.com [96.34.104 .67]
10    16 ms    19 ms    17 ms acr01wntcwa-tge-3-4.wntc.wa.charter.com [96.34.1 05.61]
11    23 ms    22 ms    20 ms acr01sttlwa-tge-7-4.sttl.wa.charter.com [96.34.1 05.197]
12    25 ms    24 ms    23 ms dtr01ptldor-tge-0-1-0-0.ptld.or.charter.com [96. 34.104.42]
13    36 ms    36 ms    39 ms integratelecom.nwax.net [198.32.195.26]
14    35 ms    35 ms    34 ms ge6-1.ar10.ptleorte.integra.net [209.63.115.26]
15    35 ms    37 ms    35 ms ge6-1.ar10.ptleorte.integra.net [209.63.115.26]
16    35 ms    35 ms    35 ms gw1-cust-darkhorse-com.ptle.eli.net [70.97.44.17 8]
17    46 ms    39 ms    36 ms www.tfaw.com [70.96.128.245]
18    62 ms    37 ms    36 ms www.tfaw.com [70.96.128.245]
Trace complete.

Routing of incoming traffic

Hi all,
I have a WRT54G router.
I have an internet address pointing to my router. Can anyone tell me how i route the incoming request to a particular computer. Fow example the internet address is http://www.myaddress.com (which routes to my router at a static ip address) i want it routed to a webserver on my internal network named www .
I had this setup on my old router but cannot find the settings to do this with this router.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave.

I think you need to enable "Advanced Routing" on your Router to do that work.
Click Here how to enable Advanced Routing on your router.

Blocking Incoming Texts By Sender?

I'm asking this for a friend who is receiving incoming SPAM texts. The only way I know to block incoming texts is to have your carrier disable texting totally. I couldn't find anything in the iOS 6.1 User Guide about blocking incoming texts.
So, does anyone know if it is possible to do this or if there is an app that can do this?

No, you misread what I posted. The first part of the sentence referred to all cariers employing a process whereby you can report spam messages. For AT&T that would be here, and there is no charge:
http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB115812&cv=820&title=Block%20spam%2 0text%20messages%20on%20your%20wireless%20phone#fbid=ozLqTsdlTGL
Since spammers frequently change the spoofed numbers they send with just blocking a single number will not generally work. If you want to block a number of that psycho ex-girlfriend AT&T has a service that lets you do so for a fee ($4.95 per month). I believe Verizon lets you do up to 10 numbers for free. This works for the psycho ex but not well for spammers.
There is no fee to turn off all texting and I never said there was.

Block incoming numbers (phone

This is the 21st Century and the iPhone is 1,000,000 times more powerful than computers of 40 years ago.
WHY can I not block incoming calls, ignore them etc? WHY can I not block incoming spam text messages?
I can do this on email and other services. The hardware of the iPhone is totally capable of keeping and obeying a Black List of numbers I enter.
Is there a Reason that Apple refuse to give us this feature? Are they intent on forcing us to accept spam? This makes Apple look really bad.
Are there ANY 3rd party Apps (or Hacks even!) which can do this?
email me if you can't post answers here

Even if you employ a blacklist, the phone would still ring/vibrate once and you'd still have the numbers in your recent calls list. Blacklisting on the device itself just uses the caller id information to check against the blacklist before dropping the call, so it has to allow the call to initially connect to get the caller id information.
The only way to get a call to not even connect at all is for the carrier to block it at their switches. AT&T offers this in the USA, for a fee (their parental controls package), and I'm sure any carrier could offer it through a web interface on your account web page, but none seem to be willing to set it up or incur the expense to support it.
You can globally disable not only the ring sound, but also vibrate, but then you will never know when you get a call at all (I have my ring/silent switch set up like that for meetings, so I am not interrupted at all). The silent ring tone idea (just google for one, there are several hits to download from) in a contact list of those numbers you don't want to answer works too.
If you want the option to dump those numbers directly to voice mail, you can suggest it to Apple - http://www.apple.com/feedback/ and maybe they'll include it in a future iOS release.

What you need to know about British Telecom Total ...

I don't want to waste time on this forum. I've changed to Virgin - and thank God !
Here's the text of the last letter I wrote to Customer Service Director, BT plc, Correspondence Centre, Durham, DH98 1BT. I got the briefest of replies, which dealt with none of the points I raised.
During April I was engaged in searching for a new flat. There were a number of possible candidates. I phoned British Telecom to ask about the service to the flat I favoured
Your representative told me that I could expect up to 4 Mbs in this are. That was a lie
The maximum possible speed is 2 Mbs. My IP Profile has typically been 1,2Mbs and currently you have restricted me to .9 Mbs and then to .78 Mbs
Given that I was at the start of an 18 month contract with you, I would not have moved to this address had I been told – truthfully – by BT that this area is the worst in Cardiff for Internet access.
In the same call your representative told me that there would be no problem providing a telephone service to 93 B because the line had very recently been in use and just needed to be switched on at the exchange That was a lie.
Before moving in, I plugged a handset into the BT socket. There was no 'soft dial tone' which confirms that an inactive line is still connected to the exchange. I notified BT three times, but was assured – in a patronising manner – that then line had been tested and would be connected Friday 30th May. It wasn't of course.
I notified BT by email. No reply on Saturday, nor the following days. On Tuesday an engineer called me. He told me my phone was working. I said it wasn't. He said he would check and ring me back within a half hour. He did not do so.
It was not until the following Friday, that an engineer called and the problem was resolved. By that time I had spoken to the landlord and discovered that the BT line had not been in use for some time. Previous tenants had taken the Virgin Media telephone service. The flat had been decorated and the condition of the BT cabling inside the house could not be guaranteed.
You have therefore deprived me of my telephone/internet service during the first week of May. You have not offered any compensation.
I now raise a matter which may seem marginal, but which speaks volumes for the way British Telecom manage their business. The BT website offers a 'BT Community Forum'. I registered to use it because I wanted to document my experience for the benefit of other customers. The procedure ends with a message saying that an email with a clickable link will be sent, serving to verify the identity of the person registering. No such email was received. I tried again. No result. I notified BT. No reply.
After perhaps six emails, a young woman phoned me. She wasted half an hour of my time establishing what I had already said in my emails. She said she would pass the matter on to technicians. No response – of course.
It is evident that BT does not allow customers to register to use the BT community Forum, for fear that you will receive bad publicity. Given the shoddy manner in which you treat your customers, I imagine that bad publicity is inevitable. The Forum is a sham.
I now come to the main issue – the provision of an Internet service. I wish once more to make it clear that it is not the slowness of this service that is the principal issue – it is the dishonesty of British Telecom personnel.
I add that I am being advised by an independent expert who is an ex-BT manager with knowledge of the provision of digital services in Cardiff. You will understand that the press are always interested in 'whistle-blowers'
If I had been honestly advised by BT that the area I was proposing to move to was poorly served by BT for digital services – and if I was experiencing the best speed that the line could offer me – about 1.5 Mbs real download speed – then I would consider myself bound by my contract with you. I would have moved to this area, knowing what performance I could expect.
However, as I have outlined above, my decision to move here was largely based on a lie told to me by your representative on the phone – that I could expect up to 4Mbs
In addition, the line speed has now been restricted to .78 Mbs. In my last letter I said that on the first occasion this 24 hour restriction was imposed I had complained and the peak time restriction was lifted. I had 1.2 Mbs off-peak, and .9 Mbs peak speeds.
This continued to the end of May. On the 2nd June ther 24 hour restriction was reimposed.
I have received an email from your customer service manager stating that this is simply because of 'long line length'. Very little technical knowledge is required to know that that statement is nonsense.
My independent advisor tells me that in fact technicians constantly 'tune' speeds in bad areas. Obviously you try to get as many customers under contract as possible by lying to them about the speeds they will receive, then progressively reduce their line performance in order to accommodate other customers
It is quite simply an outrage that BT should behave in this fashion, and nothing will please me more than having an opportunity to describe all of this in court.
I estimate that the damages in time and stress you have caused me amount to one thousand pounds. I look forward to receiving your cheque for that amount.

Hi sonsenfrancais,
Welcome to the forum.
I am sorry to hear you've now moved to another provider following some problems with the installation of your line and broadband speeds, if there's anything you'd like us to look into feel free to drop me an email at [email protected] with your BT account details.
All the best,
Stephanie
Stephanie
BTCare Community Manager
If you like a post, or want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side of the post. If someone answers your question correctly please let other members know by clicking on ’Mark as Accepted Solution’.

Voyager 220v Router - How to connect 2nd. computer...

I have already installed the USB drivers from the setup CD and my main computer is successfully connected via the USB port on the 220v Router.
I now want to add a laptop and I understand that this can just be directly connected using the Ethernet cable without needing to install anything else. So the setup CD does not need to be inserted in the drive.
Is this correct?
Can I insert the Ethernet plug in the router socket without having to switch the router off?

Thanks John.
Just one query arises from your answer though. You say connect both by ethernet for better connection but the Voyager 220v only has one USB port and one Ethernet port.
On the BT Business Forums someone asked the same question and a BT Employee said to use the other computer connected to the other port.
BT Business Forum
The other computer I want to connect to the ethernet port will be in the region of 10 to 15 metres away using an extension lead with coupler so that will have to be on the ethernet port anyway to avoid loss of signal.

Parental controls blocks all https websites

When I enabled parental controls for my 9-year old, I didn't expect her not to be able to use Google, Gmail and just about every single other website that requires logging in. The reason? Those websites are all https websites and parental controls blocks *ALL* https websites.
With https becoming more and more prevalent on the web, adding an exception is not really an option anymore. I don't want to add an exception for half of the internet. It's gotten so bad that she's encountering a popup several times per minute when just doing a little research for her homework. Web filtering is apparently a whilelist only solution, suitable only for the smallest of children - the ones that you sit next to because they can't type a web address themselves, 5 years or younger.
The only solution I could find was to turn off web filtering completely and use OpenDNS instead. Does anyone else know of a better solution?

Hello,
A alternative application as a option that is very worthy,
<http://www.netnanny.com/mac>
Randy Mac
RMACS, LLC

Anyone know anything about Apples Mail and British Telecom Yahoo and how to set it up as I am having no end of problems?

Anyone know anything about Apples Mail and British Telecom Yahoo and how to set it up as I am having no end of problems?

Apple - Support - Mail Setup Assistant

Blocking incoming calls that are not in my phone b...

i recently tried blocking incoming calls that are not in my phone book and the result was that my pin code has been blocked. does any one have an idea of how i should go about it?
Obria

That depends which phone he/she is using... this is in the phones section, not the smartphones, so I had assumed that software such as that would not be appropriate lol
Nokia History: 3110, 5110, 7110, 7110, 3510i, 6210, 6310i, 5210, 6100, 6610, 7250, 7250i, 6650, 6230, 6230i, 6260, N70, N70, 5300, N95, N95, E71, E72
Android History: HTC Desire, SE Xperia Arc, HTC Sensation, Sensation XE, One X+, Google Nexus 5

British Telecom BT 220v router blocking incoming http access ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for