27 Jan
2021
27 Jan
'21
9:12 a.m.
Hi there,
I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue on my home network, using my Bitfolk VPN. I'm
pretty sure the issue is with my ISP's network, but to be sure, is there any thing on
Bitfolk's network that would be filtering incoming UDP packets to port 500?
That's my question, but for the sake of clarity, this is the issue I'm actually
trying to solve.
I can't get WiFi calling to work on my home network. It used to work, but around the
time I got a new router from the ISP (hyperoptic), it stopped working. I am pretty
ignorant about how WiFi calling actually works, but it seems like it needs to send to UDP
500 to establish a tunnel into the telco network.
I used netcat to try sending packets to my BitFolk host, and netcat on said bitfolk host
to receive them. It seems I can send and recieve to port 499 and 501, but not port 500.
My conclusion is that my ISP is somehow filtering out 500/UDP, but I need to know that it
definitely isn't something at the bitfolk end, before I start wading through
Hyperoptic's support tiers.
I am aware that Hyperoptic use Carrier Grade NAT, but I pay extra for a static IPv4 so
that *shouldn't* be an issue.
Also, here's the Layer Four Traceroute for one of the EE WiFi calling gateways:
sudo lft -z -u -d 500 109.249.190.48
Tracing ......**********
TTL LFT trace to 109.249.190.48:500-516/udp
1 _gateway (192.168.0.1) 0.5ms
2 141.xxx.xxx.xxx.bcube.co.uk (141.xxx.xxx.xxx) 8.0ms # (redacted, my IP)
3 172.16.23.244 2.3ms
4 172.16.16.77 2.0ms
5 172.17.12.16 1.9ms
6 172.17.10.148 7.0ms
** [500-516/udp no reply from target] Use -VV to see packets.
If anyone can assure me that it should be possible to recieve port 500 UDP packets at
Bitfolk, that would be great, but happy to hear if anyone has any other insights into why
WiFi Calling doesn't work for me, that would also be great.
Thanks,
--
Misha Gale
PGP Public Key: 0x1986B8E1 https://mishagale.co.uk/pubkey.asc
27 Jan
27 Jan
9:15 a.m.
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, at 9:12 AM, Misha Gale wrote:
Hi there,
I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue on my home network, using my
Bitfolk VPN.
Oops, meant to write *Bitfolk VPS*, I don't have a VPN into
Bitfolk, I just use SSH.
--
Misha Gale
PGP Public Key: 0x1986B8E1 https://mishagale.co.uk/pubkey.asc
9:25 a.m.
On 27/01/2021 10:12, Misha Gale wrote:
Hi there,
I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue on my home network, using my Bitfolk VPN. I'm
pretty sure the issue is with my ISP's network, but to be sure, is there any thing on
Bitfolk's network that would be filtering incoming UDP packets to port 500?
A quick netcat ensures me that Bitfolk is not filtering any UDP port 500 stuff. At least
for my VMs.
So it looks like your ISP is doing something fishy.
- OM
2:11 p.m.
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:12:47AM +0000, Misha Gale wrote:
My conclusion is that my ISP is somehow filtering out
500/UDP, but
I need to know that it definitely isn't something at the bitfolk
end, before I start wading through Hyperoptic's support tiers.
It definitely isn't anything at the BitFolk side.
$ mtr -4zrc5 -u -P500 use.bitfolk.com
Start: 2021-01-27T14:05:02+0000
HOST: specialbrew.localnet Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. AS??? aa-gw.localnet 0.0% 5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.1
2. AS20712 210.53.155.90.in-ad 0.0% 5 6.8 6.8 6.7 7.0 0.1
3. AS20712 b.aimless.thn.aa.ne 0.0% 5 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.3 0.2
4. AS??? e231.jump.net.uk 0.0% 5 8.2 8.3 8.0 9.2 0.5
5. AS??? t23.jump.net.uk 0.0% 5 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.4 0.1
6. AS??? c23.jump.net.uk 0.0% 5 8.5 11.2 8.2 21.3 5.7
AS??? c24.jump.net.uk
7. AS8943 limoncello.bitfolk. 0.0% 5 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.7 0.3
8. AS??? ??? 100.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$ lft -z -u -d 500 use.bitfolk.com
traceroute to use.bitfolk.com (85.119.80.223), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 aa-gw.localnet (192.168.1.254) 0.711 ms 0.709 ms
2 210.53.155.90.in-addr.arpa (90.155.53.210) 7.023 ms 6.992 ms
3 b.aimless.thn.aa.net.uk (90.155.53.42) 7.183 ms 7.152 ms
4 e231.jump.net.uk (194.153.169.144) 7.839 ms 7.767 ms
5 t23.jump.net.uk (194.153.169.68) 7.234 ms 7.176 ms
6 c24.jump.net.uk (194.153.169.239) 14.991 ms c23.jump.net.uk (194.153.169.233) 8.114
ms
7 limoncello.bitfolk.com (85.119.80.29) 7.160 ms 7.089 ms
8 * *
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
28 Jan
28 Jan
7:22 p.m.
On 2021-01-27 01:12, Misha Gale wrote:
Hi there,
I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue on my home network, using my Bitfolk VPN. I'm
pretty sure the issue is with my ISP's network, but to be sure, is there any thing on
Bitfolk's network that would be filtering incoming UDP packets to port 500?
UDP/500 is best known for its use in IPsec VPNs, as the port used for
IKE. If NAT is involved, UDP/4500 is used instead after the initial
negotiation, so you might check if that is also unexpectedly blocked.
Maybe ask your so-called ISP if they have a policy about the use of VPNs
- many of the commercial VPNs used for anonymity or watching US TV or
whatever are IPsec-based. The primary uses for IPsec are legitimate of
course, and ISPs have no business blocking it without asking. This
assumes there's nothing in the paperwork which you signed with them that
states this is their policy though.
sudo lft -z -u -d 500 109.249.190.48
Tracing ......**********
TTL LFT trace to 109.249.190.48:500-516/udp
1 _gateway (192.168.0.1) 0.5ms
2 141.xxx.xxx.xxx.bcube.co.uk (141.xxx.xxx.xxx) 8.0ms # (redacted, my IP)
3 172.16.23.244 2.3ms
4 172.16.16.77 2.0ms
5 172.17.12.16 1.9ms
6 172.17.10.148 7.0ms
** [500-516/udp no reply from target] Use -VV to see packets.
The fact that these people are doing CGN and also have chosen to number
their routers using non-routable address space means that you may be
lucky to find any clue at all.
Ant
1423
days inactive
1424
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andy Smith -
Anthony Newman -
Misha Gale -
Ole-Morten Duesund