On 05/09/14 15:31, Neil J. McRae wrote:
(and smart arses who think they have static IP¹s on their
phones think before responding)) Just Saying!
I do :-)
On 20 Oct 2014, at 09:04, Adrian Kennard uk...@e.gg wrote:
On 05/09/14 15:31, Neil J. McRae wrote:
(and smart arses who think they have static IP¹s on their
phones think before responding)) Just Saying!
I do :-)
I saw that coming :)
Anyway, the UK v6 council event was held last Thursday,
Hi, I'd also appreciate such a hit list, to feed into our network testing: Any
services, applications, connectivity problems that can replicated in the lab.
I've obviously got the top 100 used on my current network, but any hints on
targeting 'v6 brokenness' appreciated.
The major issue with
On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:34, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:01, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes
something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where
teasing back layers of
On 05/09/2014 17:15, Richard Patterson deton...@helix.net.nz wrote:
there's plenty of things that content providers may care about
that'll be broken under NAT44 and can be resolved by adopting IPv6.
...
Geolocation tracking and/or CDN steering.
Access restrictions (Betting sites blocking
Neil,
I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes something
it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where teasing back
layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane to the subject
matter at hand is an arduous chore.
What you seem
On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:19, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
Neil,
I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes
something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where
teasing back layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane
On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:22, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
Neil,
I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes
something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where
teasing back layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane
] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing Easynet
100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but would charge
£395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside.
Regards,
Brian.
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing
Easynet 100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but
would charge £395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside.
Regards
14:06
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk');
Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing
Easynet 100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but
would charge £395
at $JOB-2 we had an entanet line and I specified IPv6 needed when I
placed the order, but it was done afterwards and we were asked to pay
a fee, I politely declined and asked Mr Lalonde to kick the right
bottom. We had the v6 block pretty quickly, no fee, and were told he
specifically didn't want
bottom. We had the v6 block pretty quickly, no fee, and were told he
specifically didn't want to charge for it so as to encourage uptake!
As they should.
There is some good ipv6 content for UKNOF29, strongly suggest those
not attending and interested in the topic take the time to watch
Now, only one of these groups is really feeling the pain of address
depletion, and that's the access ISPs(2). Some feel that pain badly, and
it's certainly true that there's no way you could enter the market as an
access ISP in the UK given a /22 of address space.
You can if you're selling
On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though! :) Or
is someone actually doing this (and have more than 75k customers were the /23
would give challenges)?
We're doing it, but don't have 75k customers :-(
On 05/09/2014 08:15, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:
On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though!
:) Or is someone actually doing this (and have more than 75k customers
were the /23 would give
On 4 Sep 2014, at 23:03, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish!
NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6.
That’s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the
relative frustrations of having a broken
On 5 September 2014 08:31, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 08:15, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:
On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though!
:) Or is someone actually doing
. but it's a good start
rather than going out and paying ~£10 ex VAT per IP address on a /22
above the /22 you get as an LIR (buying a failing ISP may be cheaper
for /22 at the moment). But saying that, there are still plenty IPv4
/22 ?
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01
/22 ?
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01
Sorry, when we got our LIR status that is. Even tougher now. Either
need to buy them or buy someone.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
http://www.surevoip.co.uk
OpenPGP (GPG/PGP) Public Key: 0x8CFBA8E6 - Import from
Neil
I think Andy sums this up well.
Also there has been some confusion about the taskforce. The taskforce
didn't set up to tell ISPs what to do - in fact BT was prominently a
founder back in 2001 but went cool when 21C Network became the foo of
choice. My perspective was and remains as a
On 05/09/2014 09:42, Christian de Larrinaga
c...@firsthand.netmailto:c...@firsthand.net wrote:
Thanks for the history lesson, my points were more generic about how we
approach this.
On that note I hope ISPs and operators as well as vendors will support the
announcement of the new Council in
I respect those points and it is good that BT is again more proactive on
this issue. Also I thought Brandon's comments on the complexities of
deploying v6 within an applications service like the BBC offer some
valuable clue that a user actually receiving IPv6 from an ISP is a
small first step
On 05/09/2014 09:43, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote:
giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to
sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6
I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content
companies *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6,
Hi,
Brian Candler wrote:
I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content
companies *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6, since they know all
their content is reachable via the tried-and-tested V4 path anyway.
I'm making an assumption that native v6 end to end will perform
On 05/09/2014 13:56, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote:
I'm making an assumption that native v6 end to end will perform better
than nat44 squashed connectivity, and that web applications will become
more interactive with more moving parts, so therefore that content
networks/applications
On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:32, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking
about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only
NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it.
Neither is
On 5 Sep 2014, at 15:31, Neil J. McRae
n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org wrote:
For the applications that work through CGN the difference between CGN and
IPV6 is largely zero from a performance point of view even under load.
No, applications are getting more port grabby, this is
Not true, there's plenty of things that content providers may care about
that'll be broken under NAT44 and can be resolved by adopting IPv6.
The obvious things being:
Port forwarding
Dodgy or non-existing ALG in the gateway, breaking things like SIP, FTP etc.
Geolocation tracking and/or CDN
On 05/09/2014 16:41, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
That¹s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably
connected to the same internet?) have not had this problem. Google has
analysed broken v6 and does not think it a barrier to deployment.
I wonder why BT differs so much
On 05/09/2014 16:43, Andy Davidson
a...@nosignal.orgmailto:a...@nosignal.org wrote:
No, applications are getting more port grabby, this is incompatible with NAT at
scale. I've had things like tiles fail to load on Goog maps at busy times when
tethered to a mobile device and IM sessions being
On 5 Sep 2014, at 17:07, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately
its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix
all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there.
That¹s quite interesting, as other large
On 05/09/2014 17:47, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
My other points? I only made one, and that was to ask you why BT is
different, from, say, Comcast. This is a technical list, and I and many
others would like to hear your experiences and data points.
You can stop wasting both yours and my
On 09/04/2014 06:03 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
(btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week,
oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something
ringing - no - it's not a phone - it's the killer app bell. ;)
Judging by their v6 take-up stats this past year, looks like
Indeed - would they have done that without it? Doubtful.
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:27, Keith Mitchell ke...@uknof.org.uk wrote:
On 09/04/2014 06:03 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
(btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week,
oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 17:47, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than
CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but
one can¹t say the same
Scott,
This has nothing to do with innovation - configuration maybe.
If we had been innovative then we might not had needed V6 at all.
For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect (business
Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic volumes
On 05/09/14 17:15, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I think we are stuck in the time warp of 5 years ago. Its simple to
make CGN scale - the question is whether you want to or not
I don't know about you, but I want the Internet to be a fundamentally
asymmetric place where consumers know their place and
And the great news is that they can and it's reliable and super fast on BT
Infinity!
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:48, William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk wrote:
On 05/09/14 17:15, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I think we are stuck in the time warp of 5 years ago. Its simple to
Just to dive in on this debate.
We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe
it's the right thing to do and at our scale it's much more feasible.
However I can tell you from experience that once you run with v6 live
with real customers for a while there are many small
Ben
I think everyone thinks it's the right thing and as you say it's just a matter
of time.
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:56, Ben King b...@warwicknet.com wrote:
Just to dive in on this debate.
We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe
it's
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of
the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to
innovate).
Just in innovation which is a key part of my
On 5 September 2014 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
When
something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt
with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up
turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took
along
On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:20, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of
the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the
Daniel
Things are improving - there is no question about that. Hopefully is perfect
just as it's needed!
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:29, Daniel Ankers
md1...@md1clv.commailto:md1...@md1clv.com wrote:
On 5 September 2014 18:22, Neil J. McRae
Deployment ! If only it was just about that part!
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:30, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:20, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
Neil,
Neil J. McRae wrote:
[...]
Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately
its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix
all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there.
I've not really noticed any IPv6 problems on our office LAN over the
My printer didn't work over IPv4 on Wednesday; don't tell BT or they'll turn
our service off for our own good?
On 5 September 2014 19:50:43 GMT+01:00, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
Leo,
As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this
industry are not atypical users.
Hi Neil,
Neil J. McRae wrote:
As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this
industry are not atypical users.
Indeed.
The issue is that there are lots of little things, if it was one big thing
then it would be easy to fix. My printer reboots everytime I try to
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
OK, that’s a bit more of a useful answer :-)
So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast?
They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m
not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its
Will,
If anyone has done V6 because of a business case then the hurdles they have
must be insane!
IPV6 is about being in this business. You mistakenly assume that in the UK we
have done nothing which is massively incorrect - and my experiences about
brokenness aren't just my own and speaking
On 5 September 2014 20:42, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
IPV6 will be here when we need it.
Indeed, IPv6 will be here when BT need it.
Aled
On 04/09/2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy wrote:
UK IPv6 Taskforce
http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/
Arguably replaced by the UK IPv6 Council, which will be introduced
further at UKNOF29 Belfast next week:
https://indico.uknof.org.uk/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=19confId=31
PS:
and while I'm on the subject ... at least 6UK removed/deleted their domain when
they turned off the lights.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2230838/uk-ipv6-transition-group-6uk-pulls-its-own-plug
On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:35, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
IPV6 will be here when its needed, the forum you need to convince to do it
is called the market.
Sure, but it’s interesting how different markets are moving at different paces.
A colleague in another place made an interesting
the task force approach of just banging the drum, handing out
a few sarnies and a flyer isn't going to make it happen.
I agree, and that?s not what the UK Council will do. Rather, the
aim is to make it more like - for example - the Swiss and Belgian
Councils, which are more about sharing
quite a few ISPs use packaged products from third parties which might
be part of the problem... I am sure most ISPs network equipment has
had v6 support for years, but if they have things like traffic
shapers, transparent proxies, load balancers, content delivery
networks* etc they might not have
On 4 September 2014 16:19, Paul Mansfield paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk
wrote:
In this particular instance, its likely that newer smaller ISPs might
have it easier than well established ones who have all sorts of legacy
gear to worry about.
I sometimes wonder if the larger, established ISPs,
Tim,
I’ve asked Consulintel to turn off the old UKv6TF DNS.
Thanks! That's a positive step. It can live on, as an archive, within The
Wayback Machine.
Martin
In this particular instance, its likely that newer smaller ISPs might
have it easier than well established ones who have all sorts of
legacy
gear to worry about.
Indeed, also one question that should be asked is of those who
essentially offer ISP + Infrastructure services, what percentage
On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
Also I see IPV6 frustrating users where its been rolled out before it was
ready which is something that's very bad.
One could make the same comment about frustrated users because of NAT44, which
is now the only way forward for
I think thats actually the current status, its just that nothing has
changed much since 2006
On 4 September 2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy mah...@mahtin.com wrote:
Would the owner of ...
UK IPv6 Taskforce
http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/
... kindly close down the website. I see the last
sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish!
NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6. - it may not be
desirable but even those that rolled out IPV6 years ago will need it. the only
way NAT44 would have been avoidable would have been for everyone on the planet
to press the IPV6
I sometimes wonder if the larger, established ISPs, sitting on their old
allocations of IPv4 addresses, have a vested interest in preserving the
status quo since without a functioning IPv6, the lack of IPv4 space is a
barrier to new competitors entering the market.
I don't see a need to invoke
64 matches
Mail list logo
