Search found 22 matches

by stix
Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:37 pm
Forum: Mobile services
Topic: Stolen phone and IMEI blocks
Replies: 7
Views: 1684

Stolen phone and IMEI blocks

From the old "Stolen phone" forum thread: If you haven't written down your IMEI (it's your phones unique ID) ask Exetel if they can supply it to you, then request that a block be placed on your stolen/lost phone to prevent it from being used on ANY network in Australia. Even if they use another SIM ...
by stix
Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:27 pm
Forum: VOIP
Topic: Australian international prefix 001161xxx
Replies: 4
Views: 736

Australian international prefix 001161xxx

Quite a while ago I started a thread:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=36622

I'm wondering if the routing can be fixed for all landline (STD) prefixes? Currently only mobile prefixes work, as stated in the previous thread.

Thanks.
by stix
Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:36 pm
Forum: VOIP
Topic: 001161... no longer working?
Replies: 5
Views: 1144

Re: 001161... no longer working?

Not sure if my reply was missed: can the routing be fixed to allow all 001161x to be correctly routed?
by stix
Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:09 pm
Forum: VOIP
Topic: 001161... no longer working?
Replies: 5
Views: 1144

Re: 001161... no longer working?

pasanm wrote: <snip>
routing is fixed. you can use the 0011614 as your desired.

you should able to make calls using this prefix now.
Yes! This is great, thank you! However, is there any chance it can be made more generic? ie. for all 001161xx rather than just 0011614xx? That would be the ideal fix.
by stix
Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:36 pm
Forum: VOIP
Topic: 001161... no longer working?
Replies: 5
Views: 1144

Re: 001161... no longer working?

I have been using VoIP via Sipdroid on Android via HSPA and via a Siemens C470 over ADSL. All my numbers in my phone are international prefixed for convenience when travelling, and this used to work via VoIP, too. But now I find dialling eg 001161433xxxxxx returns "busy" while dialling 0433xxxxxx w...
by stix
Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:12 pm
Forum: VOIP
Topic: 001161... no longer working?
Replies: 5
Views: 1144

001161... no longer working?

I have been using VoIP via Sipdroid on Android via HSPA and via a Siemens C470 over ADSL. All my numbers in my phone are international prefixed for convenience when travelling, and this used to work via VoIP, too. But now I find dialling eg 001161433xxxxxx returns "busy" while dialling 0433xxxxxx wo...
by stix
Mon May 31, 2010 7:39 pm
Forum: HSPA connections
Topic: Recent Optus network degradation?
Replies: 4
Views: 1325

Re: Recent Optus network degradation?

Today I had a good run: 3G most of the way, surprisingly, didn't even notice the tunnels much. Even had usable 3G at Stanwell Park. But when I got 3G around Thirroul, my packets were going to /dev/null intermittently for minutes at a time. Now, at North Wollongong, 3G is fine again. It is perplexing.
by stix
Tue May 25, 2010 6:43 pm
Forum: HSPA connections
Topic: Recent Optus network degradation?
Replies: 4
Views: 1325

Recent Optus network degradation?

I commute from Wollongong to Sydney daily (train) and use Exetel HSPA via a Nexus One. I have noticed over the last month or so that the Optus network is increasingly unreliable, often getting network registration failures, network unavailable, no 3G signal in normally strong signal areas, or an app...
by stix
Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:12 pm
Forum: ADSL connections
Topic: Sync, can ping gateway, but no further?
Replies: 6
Views: 370

Re: Sync, can ping gateway, but no further?

Confirmed, back about 18:09.
by stix
Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:00 pm
Forum: ADSL connections
Topic: Sync, can ping gateway, but no further?
Replies: 6
Views: 370

Sync, can ping gateway, but no further?

Since about 17:30, I still have line sync and can ping my PPPoE endpoint (220.233.1.152) but can't get any further (eg. 220.233.0.3). I've downed and upped my pppoe0 interface with no change.

What gives? I'm on the Wollongong exchange with ADSL2 via Optus (024229xxxx).
by stix
Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:43 pm
Forum: Archived threads
Topic: MTU and "baby giants" (RFC4638)?
Replies: 38
Views: 8286

Re: MTU and "baby giants" (RFC4638)?

Your suggestions for our problems: 1) No, DF is not set. 2) No, this is before VPN connection is successfully established (i.e. during authentication phase) 3) Your statement seems wrong here: Exetel is not fragmenting a large packet because it refuses to negotiate an MTU below 1500 in its PPPoE tu...
by stix
Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:08 pm
Forum: Archived threads
Topic: MTU and "baby giants" (RFC4638)?
Replies: 38
Views: 8286

Re: MTU and "baby giants" (RFC4638)?

I can report the same issue with PPPoE causing an IPSEC VPN connection to fail to establish. With PPPoE run from my Linux gateway, it fails. Changing to PPPoA half-bridge mode solves the issue. This an acceptable workaround, but I'd prefer to be in control of the PPPoE session. The big question is ...
by stix
Sat May 31, 2008 4:09 pm
Forum: Archived threads
Topic: Very slow speeds right now (not supposed to be shaped)
Replies: 5
Views: 634

Re: Very slow speeds right now (not supposed to be shaped)

Hmm. Much better now. Sun obviously helps ;) ksh$ ftp http://home.exetel.com.au/ozspeed/storm_3mb.jpg?t=$(date '+%s') Requesting http://home.exetel.com.au/ozspeed/storm_3mb.jpg?t=1212214101 100% |*****************************************************************************| 2990 KB 566.25 KB/s 00:00...
by stix
Sat May 31, 2008 1:18 pm
Forum: Archived threads
Topic: Very slow speeds right now (not supposed to be shaped)
Replies: 5
Views: 634

Re: Very slow speeds right now (not supposed to be shaped)

<aol> Me too! </aol> 1.45 Mbps via the GUI Exetel speedtest, although it seems quite variable. Also, since I don't trust Windoze: ksh$ ftp http://home.exetel.com.au/ozspeed/storm_3mb.jpg?t=$(date '+%s') Requesting http://home.exetel.com.au/ozspeed/storm_3mb.jpg?t=1212201971 100% |*******************...
by stix
Mon May 05, 2008 4:15 pm
Forum: Archived threads
Topic: MTU and "baby giants" (RFC4638)?
Replies: 38
Views: 8286

Re: MTU and "baby giants" (RFC4638)?

*sigh*

'nuff said. Anyway, I'm working to resurrect an old patch and get it into NetBSD, so at least that bit will be "fixed" (for some value of "fixed" I don't really agree with).

Thanks for trying.