Orbit

Have you tried wireshark? You could inspect each & every packet leaving your network/devices ( and port numbers thereof ).

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:00 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

Hi Rahul

I agree with you and TCP Traceroute/Ping was the first thing on my mind, but unfortunately, I'm unable to determine the port number.

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com/

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:57, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll,

Ping is never the ideal tool to conclude if you're able to reach any given destination. Especially ICMP, this is quite common practice to block ICMP responses. I too am not able to "ping" the same host from AS135817 but Jio VoWIFI works just fine for me.

Maybe you want to do a tcp traceroute on the intended port number ( I'm not sure which port number is being used here for VoWiFi ). You'll surely find more useful information.

Thank you. Rahul

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:39 PM Daryll Swer via INNOG innog@innog.net wrote:

...

Hi Folks

Does anybody know who I can reach out to for the following issue?

My freshly allocated prefix (*103.176.189.0/24 http://103.176.189.0/24) *is unable to communicate with Reliance Jio's VoWiFi end-point on AS55836. And hence my Jio numbers are unable to work with VoWiFi when the source IPv4 address is originating from 103.176.189.0/24. [image: image.png]

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/130c0a88b762eb0214b0b77a47d5197bfd294fe9?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=91e9e3a1e9058563 _______________________________________________ INNOG mailing list -- innog@innog.net To unsubscribe send an email to innog-leave@innog.net

Hi Daryll

If the protocol in use is UDP, on a linux machine you could use tracepath which allows you to specify dest port as well. Following is the output on my ubuntu machine.

rahul@server:~$ tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: ??? 0.821ms 1: no reply 2: ??? 1.307ms 3: no reply 4: no reply 5: no reply 6: no reply 7: no reply 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: 49.44.59.38 37.638ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 22 back 7

Can you try the same & check if you're able to reach UDP:4500 on the same destination?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

Hi Rahul

I determined the following is used: 49.44.59.38 over *UDP *port 4500.

It looks like AS55836 only accepts UDP connections to those IP addresses and hence TCP pings fails. Any further suggestions?

PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 4500 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2010.300ms Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.373ms Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.485ms Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.512ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:4500 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 443 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2013.617ms Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2001.272ms Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2015.632ms Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2002.627ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:443 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 80 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2012.398ms Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2014.021ms Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2014.230ms Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2008.071ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:80 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics.

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/08ddbfcc1b66e9432d8473f14f9443c67b698660?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=c6c23d01c5da46eb

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 16:08, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Have you tried wireshark? You could inspect each & every packet leaving your network/devices ( and port numbers thereof ).

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:00 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

I agree with you and TCP Traceroute/Ping was the first thing on my mind, but unfortunately, I'm unable to determine the port number.

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com/

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:57, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll,

Ping is never the ideal tool to conclude if you're able to reach any given destination. Especially ICMP, this is quite common practice to block ICMP responses. I too am not able to "ping" the same host from AS135817 but Jio VoWIFI works just fine for me.

Maybe you want to do a tcp traceroute on the intended port number ( I'm not sure which port number is being used here for VoWiFi ). You'll surely find more useful information.

Thank you. Rahul

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:39 PM Daryll Swer via INNOG innog@innog.net wrote:

...

Hi Folks

Does anybody know who I can reach out to for the following issue?

My freshly allocated prefix (*103.176.189.0/24 http://103.176.189.0/24) *is unable to communicate with Reliance Jio's VoWiFi end-point on AS55836. And hence my Jio numbers are unable to work with VoWiFi when the source IPv4 address is originating from 103.176.189.0/24. [image: image.png]

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com _______________________________________________ INNOG mailing list -- innog@innog.net To unsubscribe send an email to innog-leave@innog.net

Hi Daryll

Your prefix being filtered out is very likely. As location information for this prefix is not available in any of the popular Geolocation databases. I'd suggest you update the records with geolocation DBs to make this prefix "legit". I believe that should fix your issue.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:57 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

Hi Rahul

As I suspected, it looks like they are filtering/dropping my prefix, presumably as it was previously unallocated/bogon.

tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: 103.176.189.33 1.357ms 1: 103.176.189.33 0.641ms 2: 36.255.84.36 3.455ms 3: 103.16.68.10 2.025ms 4: no reply 5: 115.112.9.29.STATIC-Bangalore.vsnl.net.in 2.351ms asymm 3 6: no reply 7: 115.112.8.118.STATIC-Chennai.vsnl.net.in 9.784ms asymm 8 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: no reply 23: no reply 24: no reply 25: no reply 26: no reply 27: no reply 28: no reply 29: no reply 30: no reply Too many hops: pmtu 1500 Resume: pmtu 1500

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/36255b77ff2b3ae2fdf7fb7056e81cfbca177f3e?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=7ee8b5ad8a6a47ac

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:37, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll

If the protocol in use is UDP, on a linux machine you could use tracepath which allows you to specify dest port as well. Following is the output on my ubuntu machine.

rahul@server:~$ tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: ??? 0.821ms 1: no reply 2: ??? 1.307ms 3: no reply 4: no reply 5: no reply 6: no reply 7: no reply 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: 49.44.59.38 37.638ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 22 back 7

Can you try the same & check if you're able to reach UDP:4500 on the same destination?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

I determined the following is used: 49.44.59.38 over *UDP *port 4500.

It looks like AS55836 only accepts UDP connections to those IP addresses and hence TCP pings fails. Any further suggestions?

PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 4500 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2010.300ms Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.373ms Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.485ms Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.512ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:4500 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 443 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2013.617ms Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2001.272ms Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2015.632ms Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2002.627ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:443 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 80 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2012.398ms Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2014.021ms Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2014.230ms Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2008.071ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:80 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics.

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 16:08, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Have you tried wireshark? You could inspect each & every packet leaving your network/devices ( and port numbers thereof ).

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:00 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

I agree with you and TCP Traceroute/Ping was the first thing on my mind, but unfortunately, I'm unable to determine the port number.

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com/

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:57, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll,

Ping is never the ideal tool to conclude if you're able to reach any given destination. Especially ICMP, this is quite common practice to block ICMP responses. I too am not able to "ping" the same host from AS135817 but Jio VoWIFI works just fine for me.

Maybe you want to do a tcp traceroute on the intended port number ( I'm not sure which port number is being used here for VoWiFi ). You'll surely find more useful information.

Thank you. Rahul

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:39 PM Daryll Swer via INNOG < innog@innog.net> wrote:

> Hi Folks > > Does anybody know who I can reach out to for the following issue? > > My freshly allocated prefix (*103.176.189.0/24 > http://103.176.189.0/24) *is unable to communicate with Reliance > Jio's VoWiFi end-point on AS55836. And hence my Jio numbers are unable to > work with VoWiFi when the source IPv4 address is originating from > 103.176.189.0/24. > [image: image.png] > > *--* > Best Regards > Daryll J. L. Swer > Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 > Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com > _______________________________________________ > INNOG mailing list -- innog@innog.net > To unsubscribe send an email to innog-leave@innog.net >

Hi Rahul

It seems some (if not most or all) of the GeoIP platforms have picked up on the prefix's correct location/origin AS.

However, there are no changes with the VoWiFi issues with Jio, what would you recommend?

[image: image.png] *Side note: IPv6 was disabled temporarily for this test :)*

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/3d1824c12821e576b875e5781ff6f32034c54566?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=ffaea25f47f994d6

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 23:21, Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

Hi Rahul

That sounds about right.

And yes, the first thing I did after prefix allocation was shoot an email to the major platforms for GeoIP Data along with filling out their correction forms, 80% of them have accepted.

I believe it may take some time to propagate around the internet,

I will revisit this issue once the propagation is done.

Thanks for your help

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/0d8857033d02bcfbc8b829a66d85d12331ad8928?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=92274e9e52a7146f

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:54, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll

Your prefix being filtered out is very likely. As location information for this prefix is not available in any of the popular Geolocation databases. I'd suggest you update the records with geolocation DBs to make this prefix "legit". I believe that should fix your issue.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:57 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

As I suspected, it looks like they are filtering/dropping my prefix, presumably as it was previously unallocated/bogon.

tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: 103.176.189.33 1.357ms 1: 103.176.189.33 0.641ms 2: 36.255.84.36 3.455ms 3: 103.16.68.10 2.025ms 4: no reply 5: 115.112.9.29.STATIC-Bangalore.vsnl.net.in https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/0062e5aa82cfebe05d50759c82b5d96c2cca77b9?url=http%3A%2F%2F115.112.9.29.STATIC-Bangalore.vsnl.net.in&userId=2153471&signature=38d36980365ce003 2.351ms asymm 3 6: no reply 7: 115.112.8.118.STATIC-Chennai.vsnl.net.in https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/290f4280da8d63b0b76ff23003af3f2bf45d2c44?url=http%3A%2F%2F115.112.8.118.STATIC-Chennai.vsnl.net.in&userId=2153471&signature=6b77a5b72ef2d8fc 9.784ms asymm 8 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: no reply 23: no reply 24: no reply 25: no reply 26: no reply 27: no reply 28: no reply 29: no reply 30: no reply Too many hops: pmtu 1500 Resume: pmtu 1500

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/bd9b5c97b108602390d75a499ab30dfd7f318a06?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=75657ce7d8485d70

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:37, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll

If the protocol in use is UDP, on a linux machine you could use tracepath which allows you to specify dest port as well. Following is the output on my ubuntu machine.

rahul@server:~$ tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: ??? 0.821ms 1: no reply 2: ??? 1.307ms 3: no reply 4: no reply 5: no reply 6: no reply 7: no reply 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: 49.44.59.38 37.638ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 22 back 7

Can you try the same & check if you're able to reach UDP:4500 on the same destination?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

I determined the following is used: 49.44.59.38 over *UDP *port 4500.

It looks like AS55836 only accepts UDP connections to those IP addresses and hence TCP pings fails. Any further suggestions?

PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 4500 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/c1f226e2945fc3396a94e1ca495c499f245e9aa5?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=c012f0571469b4a2

• No response - time=2010.300ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/95872b55b3b4631583c9c78a4da678889903adb4?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=46ab49021aa0b401

• No response - time=2014.373ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/818f090c7b543287e43cd73e16568e9dab0e9aed?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=1bdeeb39868dccca

• No response - time=2014.485ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/eafd37e17dfdc6030f78ba4397c43604423ce7a6?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=59a8a8e068c71880

• No response - time=2014.512ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:4500 https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/d54057a35afbf240d53d02786b076b2225f87fed?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500&userId=2153471&signature=1417043e34269eb8 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 443 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/cc3c80f79525d44e53ac3c01d4609c4c7334d39c?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=10e805c0931cfa75

• No response - time=2013.617ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/cb0925bb8b00183187a732477fad33b3e95487e5?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=897830baeb6003cb

• No response - time=2001.272ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/51d9ca5946b88dfeca3a308c80ed2f1c15e5d81a?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=5b889c3003b3e5be

• No response - time=2015.632ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/065ce8029bcf207cb61412804747f4cc3d6f2935?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=dfe5b08cb0d2ee4b

• No response - time=2002.627ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:443 https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/8ff034cf275d7578e1af6b037f6f143eb23de108?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443&userId=2153471&signature=2901351f39bb6032 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 80 49.44.59.38

Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/efc7df9f86d9b46114efebc06e86c6095fd6ddb3?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=781d7d6f9c09bb72

• No response - time=2012.398ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/a876ab330fd9a6bdfc41a7d4481331f39c7b4129?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=2bfb3f83beac843c

• No response - time=2014.021ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/9a741224304b728827d9e27a2ef00ba0aac31e20?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=76af19f9f9825df7

• No response - time=2014.230ms

Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/55f7322fdc6ca35136f41b8b0d435fe55772952f?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=981858a3d358ff2b

• No response - time=2008.071ms

Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:80 https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/c095aa715819ceb84ddf2217b96060f2bb885442?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80&userId=2153471&signature=f563d072fc3ae2a3 4 probes sent. 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics.

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/8a7f2744c98006ef71118f7720b17004ceb93cc2?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=8a62ffa09fdf4603

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 16:08, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Have you tried wireshark? You could inspect each & every packet leaving your network/devices ( and port numbers thereof ).

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:00 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

> Hi Rahul > > I agree with you and TCP Traceroute/Ping was the first thing on my > mind, but unfortunately, I'm unable to determine the port number. > > *--* > Best Regards > Daryll J. L. Swer > Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 > Website: daryllswer.com > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/89c8549a687cbffb5a9f1b6d460ad1812fcf8b43?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com%2F&userId=2153471&signature=ebecc6c700f657f4 > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:57, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in > wrote: > >> Hi Daryll, >> >> Ping is never the ideal tool to conclude if you're able to reach >> any given destination. Especially ICMP, this is quite common practice to >> block ICMP responses. I too am not able to "ping" the same host from >> AS135817 but Jio VoWIFI works just fine for me. >> >> Maybe you want to do a tcp traceroute on the intended port number ( >> I'm not sure which port number is being used here for VoWiFi ). You'll >> surely find more useful information. >> >> Thank you. >> Rahul >> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:39 PM Daryll Swer via INNOG < >> innog@innog.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks >>> >>> Does anybody know who I can reach out to for the following issue? >>> >>> My freshly allocated prefix (*103.176.189.0/24 >>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/0a19f4d49442b42906dffbc74b5ee47b90ffb96e?url=http%3A%2F%2F103.176.189.0%2F24&userId=2153471&signature=ef613d72f1c7e349) >>> *is unable to communicate with Reliance Jio's VoWiFi end-point >>> on AS55836. And hence my Jio numbers are unable to work with VoWiFi when >>> the source IPv4 address is originating from 103.176.189.0/24 >>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/c074c7fbd121231b5bd9e06568dfe6df5980a188?url=http%3A%2F%2F103.176.189.0%2F24&userId=2153471&signature=041056fa54d61acf >>> . >>> [image: image.png] >>> >>> *--* >>> Best Regards >>> Daryll J. L. Swer >>> Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 >>> Website: daryllswer.com >>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/9fd01382f17144eb58cd04fd243c56b7674e3399?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=ef826cc265f8d371 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> INNOG mailing list -- innog@innog.net >>> To unsubscribe send an email to innog-leave@innog.net >>> >>

Hi Rahul

I think it would be great if someone on the mailing list (who knows someone from Jio) or perhaps someone directly from Jio took a look at this issue directly.

Using their looking glass https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/709db9df024cbe34b3e4b8407e476bd1c5dcc744?url=https%3A%2F%2Flg.jio.com%2F&userId=2153471&signature=dc54d55d439e67e2 sourced from here https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/5664d17fa77b2508198376993eadda1f3fc42e23?url=https%3A%2F%2Finnog.net%2Flooking-glass-for-indian-networks%2F&userId=2153471&signature=5ffed7c9cb3d8b24, it seems that on the routing front, there is no issue between AS210777 and AS55836, reachability works fine without issues. [image: image.png]

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/100240d0ff2565489d6db54282dd481ab0bb4c48?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=d20873c8dbab1e4e

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 17:11, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

Hi Daryll,

If you submitted the update request in the month of November only, I'd suggest you wait for another week as most of them have a monthly cycle of db recompilation. And it might take another couple of days for the new copy of db to propagate among whoever is using them for validation. And if the request was submitted in October, I think you will need someone from Jio to help with the exact cause. Or does anyone else on this list have any suggestions?

ps: if you have multiple upstreams you could also test by routing via one at a time, just to be sure any intermediary network is not dropping your prefix.

Thank you. Rahul

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

It seems some (if not most or all) of the GeoIP platforms have picked up on the prefix's correct location/origin AS.

However, there are no changes with the VoWiFi issues with Jio, what would you recommend?

[image: image.png] *Side note: IPv6 was disabled temporarily for this test :)*

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/3d1824c12821e576b875e5781ff6f32034c54566?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=ffaea25f47f994d6

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 23:21, Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

That sounds about right.

And yes, the first thing I did after prefix allocation was shoot an email to the major platforms for GeoIP Data along with filling out their correction forms, 80% of them have accepted.

I believe it may take some time to propagate around the internet,

I will revisit this issue once the propagation is done.

Thanks for your help

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/0d8857033d02bcfbc8b829a66d85d12331ad8928?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=92274e9e52a7146f

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:54, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll

Your prefix being filtered out is very likely. As location information for this prefix is not available in any of the popular Geolocation databases. I'd suggest you update the records with geolocation DBs to make this prefix "legit". I believe that should fix your issue.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:57 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

As I suspected, it looks like they are filtering/dropping my prefix, presumably as it was previously unallocated/bogon.

tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: 103.176.189.33 1.357ms 1: 103.176.189.33 0.641ms 2: 36.255.84.36 3.455ms 3: 103.16.68.10 2.025ms 4: no reply 5: 115.112.9.29.STATIC-Bangalore.vsnl.net.in https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/0062e5aa82cfebe05d50759c82b5d96c2cca77b9?url=http%3A%2F%2F115.112.9.29.STATIC-Bangalore.vsnl.net.in&userId=2153471&signature=38d36980365ce003 2.351ms asymm 3 6: no reply 7: 115.112.8.118.STATIC-Chennai.vsnl.net.in https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/290f4280da8d63b0b76ff23003af3f2bf45d2c44?url=http%3A%2F%2F115.112.8.118.STATIC-Chennai.vsnl.net.in&userId=2153471&signature=6b77a5b72ef2d8fc 9.784ms asymm 8 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: no reply 23: no reply 24: no reply 25: no reply 26: no reply 27: no reply 28: no reply 29: no reply 30: no reply Too many hops: pmtu 1500 Resume: pmtu 1500

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/bd9b5c97b108602390d75a499ab30dfd7f318a06?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=75657ce7d8485d70

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:37, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll

If the protocol in use is UDP, on a linux machine you could use tracepath which allows you to specify dest port as well. Following is the output on my ubuntu machine.

rahul@server:~$ tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: ??? 0.821ms 1: no reply 2: ??? 1.307ms 3: no reply 4: no reply 5: no reply 6: no reply 7: no reply 8: no reply 9: no reply 10: no reply 11: no reply 12: no reply 13: no reply 14: no reply 15: no reply 16: no reply 17: no reply 18: no reply 19: no reply 20: no reply 21: no reply 22: 49.44.59.38 37.638ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 22 back 7

Can you try the same & check if you're able to reach UDP:4500 on the same destination?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

> Hi Rahul > > I determined the following is used: > 49.44.59.38 over *UDP *port 4500. > > It looks like AS55836 only accepts UDP connections to those IP > addresses and hence TCP pings fails. Any further suggestions? > > PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 4500 49.44.59.38 > > Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/c1f226e2945fc3396a94e1ca495c499f245e9aa5?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=c012f0571469b4a2 > - No response - time=2010.300ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/95872b55b3b4631583c9c78a4da678889903adb4?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=46ab49021aa0b401 > - No response - time=2014.373ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/818f090c7b543287e43cd73e16568e9dab0e9aed?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=1bdeeb39868dccca > - No response - time=2014.485ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/eafd37e17dfdc6030f78ba4397c43604423ce7a6?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=59a8a8e068c71880 > - No response - time=2014.512ms > > Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:4500 > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/d54057a35afbf240d53d02786b076b2225f87fed?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A4500&userId=2153471&signature=1417043e34269eb8 > 4 probes sent. > 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) > Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. > PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 443 49.44.59.38 > > Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/cc3c80f79525d44e53ac3c01d4609c4c7334d39c?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=10e805c0931cfa75 > - No response - time=2013.617ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/cb0925bb8b00183187a732477fad33b3e95487e5?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=897830baeb6003cb > - No response - time=2001.272ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/51d9ca5946b88dfeca3a308c80ed2f1c15e5d81a?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=5b889c3003b3e5be > - No response - time=2015.632ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/065ce8029bcf207cb61412804747f4cc3d6f2935?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=dfe5b08cb0d2ee4b > - No response - time=2002.627ms > > Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:443 > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/8ff034cf275d7578e1af6b037f6f143eb23de108?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A443&userId=2153471&signature=2901351f39bb6032 > 4 probes sent. > 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) > Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. > PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 80 49.44.59.38 > > Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/efc7df9f86d9b46114efebc06e86c6095fd6ddb3?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=781d7d6f9c09bb72 > - No response - time=2012.398ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/a876ab330fd9a6bdfc41a7d4481331f39c7b4129?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=2bfb3f83beac843c > - No response - time=2014.021ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/9a741224304b728827d9e27a2ef00ba0aac31e20?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=76af19f9f9825df7 > - No response - time=2014.230ms > Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/55f7322fdc6ca35136f41b8b0d435fe55772952f?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80%2Ftcp&userId=2153471&signature=981858a3d358ff2b > - No response - time=2008.071ms > > Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:80 > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/c095aa715819ceb84ddf2217b96060f2bb885442?url=http%3A%2F%2F49.44.59.38%3A80&userId=2153471&signature=f563d072fc3ae2a3 > 4 probes sent. > 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) > Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. > > *--* > Best Regards > Daryll J. L. Swer > Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 > Website: daryllswer.com > https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/8a7f2744c98006ef71118f7720b17004ceb93cc2?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=8a62ffa09fdf4603 > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 16:08, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in > wrote: > >> Have you tried wireshark? You could inspect each & every packet >> leaving your network/devices ( and port numbers thereof ). >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:00 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rahul >>> >>> I agree with you and TCP Traceroute/Ping was the first thing on my >>> mind, but unfortunately, I'm unable to determine the port number. >>> >>> *--* >>> Best Regards >>> Daryll J. L. Swer >>> Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 >>> Website: daryllswer.com >>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/89c8549a687cbffb5a9f1b6d460ad1812fcf8b43?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com%2F&userId=2153471&signature=ebecc6c700f657f4 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:57, Rahul Makhija < >>> rahul.m@estointernet.in> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Daryll, >>>> >>>> Ping is never the ideal tool to conclude if you're able to reach >>>> any given destination. Especially ICMP, this is quite common practice to >>>> block ICMP responses. I too am not able to "ping" the same host from >>>> AS135817 but Jio VoWIFI works just fine for me. >>>> >>>> Maybe you want to do a tcp traceroute on the intended port number >>>> ( I'm not sure which port number is being used here for VoWiFi ). You'll >>>> surely find more useful information. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> Rahul >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:39 PM Daryll Swer via INNOG < >>>> innog@innog.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Folks >>>>> >>>>> Does anybody know who I can reach out to for the following issue? >>>>> >>>>> My freshly allocated prefix (*103.176.189.0/24 >>>>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/0a19f4d49442b42906dffbc74b5ee47b90ffb96e?url=http%3A%2F%2F103.176.189.0%2F24&userId=2153471&signature=ef613d72f1c7e349) >>>>> *is unable to communicate with Reliance Jio's VoWiFi end-point >>>>> on AS55836. And hence my Jio numbers are unable to work with VoWiFi when >>>>> the source IPv4 address is originating from 103.176.189.0/24 >>>>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/c074c7fbd121231b5bd9e06568dfe6df5980a188?url=http%3A%2F%2F103.176.189.0%2F24&userId=2153471&signature=041056fa54d61acf >>>>> . >>>>> [image: image.png] >>>>> >>>>> *--* >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> Daryll J. L. Swer >>>>> Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 >>>>> Website: daryllswer.com >>>>> https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/9fd01382f17144eb58cd04fd243c56b7674e3399?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=ef826cc265f8d371 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> INNOG mailing list -- innog@innog.net >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to innog-leave@innog.net >>>>> >>>>

Hi folks

Just a quick update on this issue/case.

Jio's team have connected with me and they are looking into the issue.

Thanks to everyone involved in helping me with this issue :)

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/4dc5d5545269e224fcf3f4dea8a6cac54c6b4180?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=68254043a7df8605

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 03:18, Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

Hi Folks

Would be appreciated if someone from Jio or somebody who knows someone in Jio could help me out here, the GeoIP data for the prefix has propagated in various databases, yet Jio's VoWiFi still refuses to work with my prefix.

Similarly, the same exact issue with Airtel 4G's VoWiFi (AS45609).

On top of correct GeoIP Data, the prefix is RPKI validated! Really feel, these filtering systems should be automated to ensure they fetch the latest available data out there. [image: Screenshot 2021-12-13 at 3.16.13 AM.png]

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 17:41, Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

I think it would be great if someone on the mailing list (who knows someone from Jio) or perhaps someone directly from Jio took a look at this issue directly.

Using their looking glass https://lg.jio.com/ sourced from here https://innog.net/looking-glass-for-indian-networks/, it seems that on the routing front, there is no issue between AS210777 and AS55836, reachability works fine without issues. [image: image.png]

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 17:11, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll,

If you submitted the update request in the month of November only, I'd suggest you wait for another week as most of them have a monthly cycle of db recompilation. And it might take another couple of days for the new copy of db to propagate among whoever is using them for validation. And if the request was submitted in October, I think you will need someone from Jio to help with the exact cause. Or does anyone else on this list have any suggestions?

ps: if you have multiple upstreams you could also test by routing via one at a time, just to be sure any intermediary network is not dropping your prefix.

Thank you. Rahul

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

It seems some (if not most or all) of the GeoIP platforms have picked up on the prefix's correct location/origin AS.

However, there are no changes with the VoWiFi issues with Jio, what would you recommend?

[image: image.png] *Side note: IPv6 was disabled temporarily for this test :)*

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 23:21, Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

...

Hi Rahul

That sounds about right.

And yes, the first thing I did after prefix allocation was shoot an email to the major platforms for GeoIP Data along with filling out their correction forms, 80% of them have accepted.

I believe it may take some time to propagate around the internet,

I will revisit this issue once the propagation is done.

Thanks for your help

*--* Best Regards Daryll J. L. Swer Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:54, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in wrote:

...

Hi Daryll

Your prefix being filtered out is very likely. As location information for this prefix is not available in any of the popular Geolocation databases. I'd suggest you update the records with geolocation DBs to make this prefix "legit". I believe that should fix your issue.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:57 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com wrote:

> Hi Rahul > > As I suspected, it looks like they are filtering/dropping my prefix, > presumably as it was previously unallocated/bogon. > > tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 > 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 > 1: 103.176.189.33 1.357ms > 1: 103.176.189.33 0.641ms > 2: 36.255.84.36 3.455ms > 3: 103.16.68.10 2.025ms > 4: no reply > 5: 115.112.9.29.STATIC-Bangalore.vsnl.net.in 2.351ms > asymm 3 > 6: no reply > 7: 115.112.8.118.STATIC-Chennai.vsnl.net.in 9.784ms > asymm 8 > 8: no reply > 9: no reply > 10: no reply > 11: no reply > 12: no reply > 13: no reply > 14: no reply > 15: no reply > 16: no reply > 17: no reply > 18: no reply > 19: no reply > 20: no reply > 21: no reply > 22: no reply > 23: no reply > 24: no reply > 25: no reply > 26: no reply > 27: no reply > 28: no reply > 29: no reply > 30: no reply > Too many hops: pmtu 1500 > Resume: pmtu 1500 > > *--* > Best Regards > Daryll J. L. Swer > Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 > Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:37, Rahul Makhija rahul.m@estointernet.in > wrote: > >> Hi Daryll >> >> If the protocol in use is UDP, on a linux machine you could use >> tracepath which allows you to specify dest port as well. Following is the >> output on my ubuntu machine. >> >> rahul@server:~$ tracepath -p 4500 49.44.59.38 >> 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 >> 1: ??? 0.821ms >> 1: no reply >> 2: ??? 1.307ms >> 3: no reply >> 4: no reply >> 5: no reply >> 6: no reply >> 7: no reply >> 8: no reply >> 9: no reply >> 10: no reply >> 11: no reply >> 12: no reply >> 13: no reply >> 14: no reply >> 15: no reply >> 16: no reply >> 17: no reply >> 18: no reply >> 19: no reply >> 20: no reply >> 21: no reply >> 22: 49.44.59.38 37.638ms >> reached >> Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 22 back 7 >> >> Can you try the same & check if you're able to reach UDP:4500 on >> the same destination? >> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:06 PM Daryll Swer contact@daryllswer.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rahul >>> >>> I determined the following is used: >>> 49.44.59.38 over *UDP *port 4500. >>> >>> It looks like AS55836 only accepts UDP connections to those IP >>> addresses and hence TCP pings fails. Any further suggestions? >>> >>> PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 4500 >>> 49.44.59.38 >>> >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2010.300ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.373ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.485ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:4500/tcp - No response - time=2014.512ms >>> >>> Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:4500 >>> 4 probes sent. >>> 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) >>> Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. >>> PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 443 >>> 49.44.59.38 >>> >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2013.617ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2001.272ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2015.632ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:443/tcp - No response - time=2002.627ms >>> >>> Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:443 >>> 4 probes sent. >>> 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) >>> Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. >>> PS C:\Users\daryl\Desktop\PSTools> ./tcping64.exe -p 80 49.44.59.38 >>> >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2012.398ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2014.021ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2014.230ms >>> Probing 49.44.59.38:80/tcp - No response - time=2008.071ms >>> >>> Ping statistics for 49.44.59.38:80 >>> 4 probes sent. >>> 0 successful, 4 failed. (100.00% fail) >>> Was unable to connect, cannot provide trip statistics. >>> >>> *--* >>> Best Regards >>> Daryll J. L. Swer >>> Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 >>> Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 16:08, Rahul Makhija < >>> rahul.m@estointernet.in> wrote: >>> >>>> Have you tried wireshark? You could inspect each & every packet >>>> leaving your network/devices ( and port numbers thereof ). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:00 PM Daryll Swer < >>>> contact@daryllswer.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Rahul >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you and TCP Traceroute/Ping was the first thing on >>>>> my mind, but unfortunately, I'm unable to determine the port number. >>>>> >>>>> *--* >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> Daryll J. L. Swer >>>>> Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 >>>>> Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:57, Rahul Makhija < >>>>> rahul.m@estointernet.in> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Daryll, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ping is never the ideal tool to conclude if you're able to >>>>>> reach any given destination. Especially ICMP, this is quite common practice >>>>>> to block ICMP responses. I too am not able to "ping" the same host from >>>>>> AS135817 but Jio VoWIFI works just fine for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you want to do a tcp traceroute on the intended port >>>>>> number ( I'm not sure which port number is being used here for VoWiFi ). >>>>>> You'll surely find more useful information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> Rahul >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:39 PM Daryll Swer via INNOG < >>>>>> innog@innog.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody know who I can reach out to for the following >>>>>>> issue? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My freshly allocated prefix (*103.176.189.0/24 >>>>>>> http://103.176.189.0/24) *is unable to communicate with >>>>>>> Reliance Jio's VoWiFi end-point on AS55836. And hence my Jio numbers are >>>>>>> unable to work with VoWiFi when the source IPv4 address is originating from >>>>>>> 103.176.189.0/24. >>>>>>> [image: image.png] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *--* >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>> Daryll J. L. Swer >>>>>>> Mobile Number: +91 700 592 0360 >>>>>>> Website: daryllswer.com https://www.daryllswer.com >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> INNOG mailing list -- innog@innog.net >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to innog-leave@innog.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>