UKOnline - details of port blocking?

I am considering getting UKOnline's service, as it is now available in my
area and their availability checker claims I can get 4Mbps on the "8000"
service. Just one question that I can't see answers to so far:

They say they block inbound ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128. Does anyone have
experience of any others? Eg a friend says he can't get bittorrent to work
unless he changes the default ports. Specifically, are ports 22 or 443
blocked inbound? I can live with not running my own mail server if I can
host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)

Zane.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:36:43 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) () wrote:

>
>I am considering getting UKOnline's service, as it is now available in my
>area and their availability checker claims I can get 4Mbps on the "8000"
>service. Just one question that I can't see answers to so far:
>
>They say they block inbound ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128. Does anyone have
>experience of any others? Eg a friend says he can't get bittorrent to work
>unless he changes the default ports. Specifically, are ports 22 or 443
>blocked inbound? I can live with not running my own mail server if I can
>host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)

Those are the only ports blocked by default by UKOL. If your
friend thinks others are blocked he needs to take it it up with UKOL
support.

Regards,
Harry (writing unofficialy)

On 17 May 2005 08:36 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) () wrote:

>if I can host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)

You'll only give them ideas!! Let's face it, how many residential users
*need* to run servers at home. For a tenner or so you could have another
ISP with a fixed IP and be running the servers without breaking any T+C,
or intentional port blocking, and yes, that would need a phone line that
would separate your UK Online from your 'business' connection. Peter M.

--
runbox.com - 1000 MB of mail storage and 100 MB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>

"Harry Broomhall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:36:43 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) () wrote:
>
>>
>>I am considering getting UKOnline's service, as it is now available in my
>>area and their availability checker claims I can get 4Mbps on the "8000"
>>service. Just one question that I can't see answers to so far:
>>
>>They say they block inbound ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128. Does anyone have
>>experience of any others? Eg a friend says he can't get bittorrent to work
>>unless he changes the default ports. Specifically, are ports 22 or 443
>>blocked inbound? I can live with not running my own mail server if I can
>>host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)
>
> Those are the only ports blocked by default by UKOL. If your
> friend thinks others are blocked he needs to take it it up with UKOL
> support.
>
> Regards,
> Harry (writing unofficialy)

He could run selected port probes from the www.grc.com website and see
whether they make it to his router/PC or get blocked by the ISP.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Harry Broomhall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I am considering getting UKOnline's service, as it is now available in my
>>area and their availability checker claims I can get 4Mbps on the "8000"
>>service. Just one question that I can't see answers to so far:
>>
>>They say they block inbound ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128. Does anyone have
>>experience of any others? Eg a friend says he can't get bittorrent to work
>>unless he changes the default ports. Specifically, are ports 22 or 443
>>blocked inbound? I can live with not running my own mail server if I can
>>host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)
>
> Those are the only ports blocked by default by UKOL. If your
>friend thinks others are blocked he needs to take it it up with UKOL
>support.

It could be his setup or NAT, too. Can you confirm (unofficially) that
UKOL does not block port 443 and customers can therefore run https
websites?

Zane.

In article <t2ej81ldtgv4ecmjbgeftphsq35tqmjfh6@212.159.2.87 >,
Peter M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>if I can host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)
>
>You'll only give them ideas!! Let's face it, how many residential users
>*need* to run servers at home. For a tenner or so you could have another
>ISP with a fixed IP and be running the servers without breaking any T+C,
>or intentional port blocking, and yes, that would need a phone line that
>would separate your UK Online from your 'business' connection. Peter M.

That tenner extends ... 11.50 for the line, possbily as little as 10 for
an emasculated account that permits port 80 inbound, so around GBP250 per
year, plus costs for DNS, MX, etc - starts to become expensive. UKOL's
offering looks good, but to save GBP250 on a second connection I'd rather
pay more for a single connection. What I'm trying to do here is find out
whether I can get what I need (inbound ports 22 and 444) on UKOL.

I have no business connection - I'm just an avid residential consumer. I
need ssh access to connect to home from where-ever (and a lot of companies
seem to permit port 22 out, so it's very useful to be able to run sshd on
port 22), and I prefer to host my email (all of it, archives going back
years, etc - which would not be feasible on a service provider account)
which I like to be able to access when I only have web access.

There is no UKOL T&C that says you can't run servers, just the following
FAQ under port blocking: "We run port-blocking on all of our broadband
services in order to maintain quality of service for all of our customers,
so you will not be able to run a mail or web server. We block ports 25,
80, 8080 and 3128." Me running an https front end client to my personal
email is not going to impact quality of service to any other customers so
this would not break the letter or the spirit of the contract.

Zane.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> In article <t2ej81ldtgv4ecmjbgeftphsq35tqmjfh6@212.159.2.87 >,
> Peter M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>if I can host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)
>>
>>You'll only give them ideas!! Let's face it, how many residential users
>>*need* to run servers at home.

Me for one :-)

Have you checked out adsl4less? I asked some months ago, and they said
they blocked no ports at all.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

In article <kQmie.5902$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>if I can host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)
>>>
>>>You'll only give them ideas!! Let's face it, how many residential users
>>>*need* to run servers at home.
>
>Me for one :-)
>
>Have you checked out adsl4less? I asked some months ago, and they said
>they blocked no ports at all.

There are plenty of ISPs that don't block ports 25, 80 et al inbound - the
trick is finding one that offers the desired speed/price point as well :-)

ntl: can do 2Mbps/200kbps for GBP24.99 with no practical traffic limit,
which is probably where I'll stay for now. UKOL's 4M/400k (my line's too
long for 8M/400k) for GBP30 is very enticing though.

Zane

On Tue, 17 May 2005 09:31:43 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) () wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Harry Broomhall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>I am considering getting UKOnline's service, as it is now available in my
>>>area and their availability checker claims I can get 4Mbps on the "8000"
>>>service. Just one question that I can't see answers to so far:
>>>
>>>They say they block inbound ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128. Does anyone have
>>>experience of any others? Eg a friend says he can't get bittorrent to work
>>>unless he changes the default ports. Specifically, are ports 22 or 443
>>>blocked inbound? I can live with not running my own mail server if I can
>>>host my squirrelmail on https and connect on port 22 for ssh :-)
>>
>> Those are the only ports blocked by default by UKOL. If your
>>friend thinks others are blocked he needs to take it it up with UKOL
>>support.
>
>It could be his setup or NAT, too.

Very true. The combination of NAT/PAT and firewalls can be
tricky!

> Can you confirm (unofficially) that
>UKOL does not block port 443 and customers can therefore run https
>websites?

There should be no problem with 443. You could even run a normal
website on a non-standard port.

Regards,
Harry (writing unofficialy).

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Harry Broomhall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Can you confirm (unofficially) that
>>UKOL does not block port 443 and customers can therefore run https
>>websites?
>
> There should be no problem with 443. You could even run a normal
>website on a non-standard port.

Yes you can, but it won't be likely to work from behind many companies'
firewalls. The nice thing about using http on 80 or https on 443 is that
most firewalls and proxies will pass the traffic - which is why being able
to run an https website on port 443 would be useful on UKOL.

Zane.