Posted by Chmeee on 01/19/76 11:44

AlmostBob wrote:

"Chmeee" <NoAddress@All.com> wrote in message
news:ltTYf.4830$4S.3080@edtnps82...

>> Penelope Pitstop wrote:
>>
>
>>> >
>>> > When you changed port numbers through your firewall/router
>>> > did you also make those same changes in WinMX itself?
>>> > Was WinMX restarted after changes were made to your port
>>> > settings? If your router has been turned off recently or
>>> > if there was a power outage, have you checked the router
>>> > settings to make sure >>> > the static IP number hasn't
>>> > changed for the computer running WinMX?
>>> >
>>> > Has WinMX been "allowed" through all firewalls, including
>>> > the XP firewall (if used)?
>>> >
>>> > If all answers are yes, have you tried a passive secondary
>>> > connection (using the "unable to..." options in your WinMX
>>> > connection settings)?
>>> > This is generally considered a "last resort" option and it
>>> > has restrictions (such as not being able to transfer to or
>>> > from another user connected in the same manner and search
>>> > results will be fewer), but it should work for most.
>>> >
>>> > HTH
>>> >
>>> > -PP
>>> >
>
>> I tried AlmostBob's suggestion of a complete change fo the
>> port numbers to 1191/1192 which are listed at:
>>
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
>>
>> as:
>>
>> gpfs 1191/tcp General Parallel File System
>> gpfs 1191/udp General Parallel File System
>> #
>> caids-sensor 1192/tcp caids sensors channel
>> caids-sensor 1192/udp caids sensors channel
>>
>> I don't know what implications there might be by using them,
>> but those numbers seem to work for now. Before using them I
>> had also re-installed Win98 and WinMx (1.9 patch) to no
>> avail.
>>
>> In answer to your questions. Yes I change WinMx each time
>> to match router/firewall settings. I also reboot the entire
>> network each time I change something, right from cable modem
>> to the old Win98 system I dedicate to WinMx. ZoneAlarm was
>> the first thing I removed when troubles occurred, so a
>> software firewall is no longer in the equation. I too,
>> consider the "unable to" settings as a last resort, but I
>> had tried them as well.
>>
>> Using 1191/1192 I had 52 successfull outbound transfers
>> overnight (about 20 failures) which is an improvement over
>> the zero success rate I had from Mar 31 'til Apr 04.
>> Transfer rate is still slow, but www.bandwidthplace.com is
>> reporting my connection at about 60% of it's normal rate so
>> I'll have to find out what THAT problem is.
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll follow up
>> here in a few days with a progress report.
>>
>> -C
>>
>
> SOUNDS LIKE,,
> " monitoring software monitors port traffic dynamically and
> can block choke or otherwise restrict usage based on the ISP
> perception of inappropriate use "your ISP may be using software
> that does something similar dont have a solution
>


Traffic seems to be back to normal now. Thanks for the tip. I'll
do a bit more reading about assigned ports to see if there is any
downside to using them. My assumption is that unless they are in
use at either end, there should be no interference. Of course
assuming anything can lead to trouble.

I do suspect this ISP of blocking or choking WinMx traffic, but
how to prove it and what to do about it, I don't know. If the
new housing development a few blocks away brings improved services
I may have the choice of switching ISPs, but for now this is all
that is available.

Thanks again,

-C



AAA Used Cars





-

[Back to original message]