Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
So why do you think Google and Facebook made the decision that they made? Because they can? someone is always first In terms of content delivery, clearly Google and Facebook don't see issues (though any access issues lead to calls to ISPs not to them :) I'd have it on BBC already if it wasn't for those pesky kids playing games. Now they're done there is a bit more freedom, and time, to get on with it. I had planned for Vints 1st Jan 2013, there was no way we could do ISOCs 6 months earlier surprise launch On a business case level, it's hard to disagree, *but* I think IPv6 will be much more important come the next Olympics 4 years is a long time, seems like a no brainer by then it would have been great to have shown that we could deliver it, just as Google, Facebook and others have made the decision to do. Sure but nobody knows or cares I understand IPV6 will become available to BT broadband customers from next year. The impatient don't need to waste their time hassling BT who need time to change large networks. Get it from smaller, more expensive, ISPs with no customers to get in the way. We've been providing v6 for years, buy now, avoid dissapointment. brandon
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13 Sep 2012, at 09:27, Adrian Kennard uk...@e.gg wrote: So for BT to say they hosted the site is not really correct, is it? Neil. Yes it is - who hosts iTunes?
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13 Sep 2012, at 06:57, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: [neil@defiant ~]$ host www.bt.com www.bt.com has address 62.239.237.2 www.bt.com has IPv6 address 2a00:2381:::1 inet6num: 2A00:2381:::/64 netname:BT-WORLD-IPVSIX-LAUNCH descr: BT World IPv6 Launch All part of business as usual ;) Mat
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13/09/12 09:36, Neil J. McRae wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 09:27, Adrian Kennard uk...@e.gg wrote: So for BT to say they hosted the site is not really correct, is it? Neil. Yes it is - who hosts iTunes? No idea, I'd have to look, not really relevant. And, you have not answered the question. What proportion of those 450 million visits hit a box that was actually on BT's network? Simple enough question for you to answer, so why not answer it?
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13/09/2012 09:54, Adrian Kennard uk...@e.gg wrote: No idea, I'd have to look, not really relevant. Of course it is. And, you have not answered the question. Of course I did, you just didn't like my answer. What proportion of those 450 million visits hit a box that was actually on BT's network? Simple enough question for you to answer, so why not answer it? I personally don't know Adrian. How much of the traffic the BBC generate actually on a box inside the BBC's network? Answer, nobody cares as long as it works, and the point of the email earlier was all about some utter codswallop that something was missing because the website didn't have IPV6. BT designed the solution for the website and hosted the website and like many companies used content distribution to enable good connectivity to the website for what is the biggest global event the world sees, this was a prudent design choice particularly as these types of website are prone to flash crowds and millions of people used the website without knowing, caring, worrying or otherwise, that it was CDN'ed, and didn't run IPV6. Regards, Neil
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13/09/12 10:05, Neil J. McRae wrote: On 13/09/2012 09:54, Adrian Kennard uk...@e.gg wrote: No idea, I'd have to look, not really relevant. Of course it is. And, you have not answered the question. Of course I did, you just didn't like my answer. What proportion of those 450 million visits hit a box that was actually on BT's network? Simple enough question for you to answer, so why not answer it? I personally don't know Adrian. How much of the traffic the BBC generate actually on a box inside the BBC's network? Answer, nobody cares as long as it works, and the point of the email earlier was all about some utter codswallop that something was missing because the website didn't have IPV6. BT designed the solution for the website and hosted the website and like many companies used content distribution to enable good connectivity to the website for what is the biggest global event the world sees, this was a prudent design choice particularly as these types of website are prone to flash crowds and millions of people used the website without knowing, caring, worrying or otherwise, that it was CDN'ed, and didn't run IPV6. I am happy that BT designed a solution and designed a web site or the means for the web site to be maintained and even managed to source of the web site. All very impressive. The project management alone, is impressive. The challenges in actually hosting a web site are all down to the bandwidth and capacity of the machines and the connectivity and so on. They are big challenges. The actual hosting aspect is impressive for 450 million visits on any web site, and a claim of doing the hosting is impressive, if you actually do the hosting. You don't have a figure, but DNS suggests that the actual visits to the site, to where the site was actually hosted, went to places like Akamai. So Akamai hosted the london2012 web site, not BT. hosting is a pretty well understood term. Hosting a web site is actually having the physical web site on your network and infrastructure. We host web sites, that are physically on boxes in our racks, so we have the challenge of ensuring those boxes have the capacity to handle the visitors. We would not be able to host anything like the london2012 web site, as we don't have the capacity. Of course, if we could simply pay Akamai to do it, and somehow have it illegal for them to claim to have done it, and then make that claim ourselves, people would be impressed with out ability to host web sites. Not trying to belittle the work BT did, or even say that BT did not pay Akamai to do the hosting, just that, it seems, BT did not in fact host the web site. As such, making such a claim, is wrong. I agree, nobody cares as long as it works, but making it work is a big job, and one that Akamai (and possibly others) did in respect of the hosting. They are very good at what they do. They should be able to tell the world how good they are. I think it is dishonest and unethical for anyone to make claims that they know are not true.
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13/09/2012 10:37, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: That at least is excellent news! Any information on how it's being delivered? Yes we will be sharing this soon. I also meant to add - that for BT Internet Connect which is BT's corporate, all new services are IPv6 enabled, and and refresh on existing customers introduces IPV6 as they request it. Neil.
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13/09/12 10:58, Neil J. McRae wrote: I also meant to add - that for BT Internet Connect which is BT's corporate, all new services are IPv6 enabled, and and refresh on existing customers introduces IPV6 as they request it. Well done.
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 13/09/12 10:59, Neil J. McRae wrote: hosting is a pretty well understood term. I couldn't disagree more. Well, I thought it was, so odd that it is not, and not very clever using a clearly misunderstood term in a claim about a web site then. Out of interest, how do others here defined hosting when referring to a web site. I really have always understood it to mean the party that actually has the physical host used to provide the service on their infrastructure. Is this really not what people generally understand it to mean? If it really does just mean the company that designed the solution, then that changes radically what it means to claim to be hosting the longon2012 web site. I wonder if London could have hosted the olympics by outsourcing the actual venue to Paris?
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
But TIm, apparently there is no demand ;-) I thought they were worried by implementing IPv6 they would cause hurricanes to descend. Chris Knowledge I.T. 'Unifying Business Technology' www.knowledgeit.co.uk Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne Wear. NE38 0AQ Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
Neil, On 11/09/2012 17:30, Neil J. McRae wrote: The official London 2012 website, which BT hosted, had more than 450 million visits four times as many as the Beijing Games website in 2008 I am baffled about the statement that BT hosted the London 2012 website. Looks like Akamai's cloud front end. ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;london2012.com.IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: london2012.com. 20 IN A 92.122.208.32 london2012.com. 20 IN A 92.122.208.64 Target 92.122.208.32 Hop Start 1 Hop End 30 Hop Packet 1Packet 2Packet 3Hostname 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms *linxnap.netarch.akamai.com* (195.66.224.168) 2 1 ms 42 ms 4 ms*a92-122-208-32.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com* (92.122.208.32) inetnum: 195.66.224.0 - 195.66.227.255 netname: LINX-PEER-LON1 descr: London Internet Exchange (LINX) descr: Primary Peering LAN in London inetnum:92.122.208.0 - 92.122.211.255 netname:AKAMAI-PA descr: Akamai Technologies country:EU I must be missing something and would be glad to learn where/how BT's running the Web site. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 11 Sep 2012, at 16:30, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: A blind man with a cane might observe that not having dual stack was clearly not a barrier for the success that the website enjoyed and clearly 450M un-missed opportunities! :-). Indeed, it's not remotely a barrier to success but it does suggest a disappointing lack of technical confidence somewhere in the supply chain. I'll assume BT is pretty confident about being able to deliver content over IPv6 as flawlessly as is possible in 2012. - Mark
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 11 September 2012 22:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Maybe Rio will have V6 - by then there might actually be a market for it I suspect though digging the transportation tunnel to the park is far higher on the minds of the organising committee. But is it something that really needs to be decided by, or cared about by the OC? I mean, the OC should be caring about the overall project, the major details, assigning authority, and making sure its all coming together at the right times, only getting involved with smaller details when the shit is hitting the proverbial fan - like good project managers :-). So whether or not to IPv6 enable could be a decision made by the teams in charge of IT and web services, and thusly cared about by them. Does the OC have to care about such minute details in the overall scale of the project? I suppose it stands to reason, after all they did state that the Olympic network would contain nothing new to avoid hitting bugs and other oddities - hence the reason they loaded it up with Cat 6500's instead of Nexus'. Perhaps they decided IPv6 is too new as well...
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 11 Sep 2012, at 22:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Yup I for one will be looking back ten years from now, at the many world records that fell, the astonishing Oscar Pistorious, Mo Farah, Usain Bolt, the outstanding BBC coverage, Sir Chris Hoy, the ladies relay, the amazing rowing, the fantastic Tennis, the mind boggling rhythmic gymnastics, the dedication of the paralympians, crazy boy Lord Boris Johnson, 007 and the queen, George Michael (ok maybe not that part), the brilliant volunteers, the stunning Olympic Park, the outstanding job the network service providers did during the event and think damn, if only they had IPV6 enabled the London 2012 website for the 4 people in the world who could have used it - oh wait a minute they could use it as it worked perfectly well for EVERYONE that had IPV4 which is everyone IN the world connected to the Internet. Opportunity rescued! Disaster of the 2012 games averted! Your majesty release knighthoods! Honestly I wish IPV6 was made a requirement but to imply that there was something critically missing quite frankly is absolute codswallop. That's a very defensive attitude. And it's not what's being said, rather that it's very disappointing that whoever made the IT decisions didn't strive for the same level of aspiration. As Sam said, it's down to attitude. The attitude of those who provide Google and Facebook is different. (note you'll find www.bt.com has been V6 enabled for a long time now) Hmmm. I don't see any records for it? Tim
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 10/09/2012 16:54, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond o...@gih.com wrote: Not meaning to urinate in your cornflakes but just making a website dual stack means absolutely nothing I'm afraid. The underlying infrastructure needs to be enabled for IPV6 and the UK has a fantastic story in this regard, in fact OFCOM held a session on this only last week. Shameful figures for the UK. With London2012.com not being dual-stacked this was such a missed opportunity. (BTW - London2012.com ran on Akamai servers and Akamai is able to offer dual stack, but for some reason, this was not taken up by those running London2012.com) The official London 2012 website, which BT hosted, had more than 450 million visits four times as many as the Beijing Games website in 2008 A blind man with a cane might observe that not having dual stack was clearly not a barrier for the success that the website enjoyed and clearly 450M un-missed opportunities! :-). Regards, Neil.
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On Tue, September 11, 2012 9:24 pm, Tim Chown wrote: I'm sure Google and Facebook see more traffic than London 2012; it hasn't stopped them. Tim Different network, different technical challenges and different attitude. It's hard to judge without knowing what really has been done (or not) towards IPv6 integration in big networks like BT and others, and also there is no written deadline for IPv6 implementation. It's not a mistery that IPv6 is not yet widely adopted, just smile as the numbers slowly increase. -- sam
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
On 11 Sep 2012, at 22:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Maybe Rio will have V6 - by then there might actually be a market for it I suspect though digging the transportation tunnel to the park is far higher on the minds of the organising committee. I wish everyone working on the Rio games as good fortune as we had on the London games. Not 100% good fortune - who remembers this olympic-related disaster? :-) http://www.flickr.com/photos/mogwai_83/5751106858/ Will
Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012
Sent from my iPhone On 11 Sep 2012, at 22:59, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: Not 100% good fortune - who remembers this olympic-related disaster? :-) http://www.flickr.com/photos/mogwai_83/5751106858/ I'm sure anyone with -actual- experience of building networks would agree, if you said this was to be the only problem in the whole games they'd have bitten your hand off especially as it was (two?) years ahead of the games and didn't affect the games time at all. But in any large construction project (and they don't come much bigger than the Olympics - the largest show on earth) there is always a risk of issues like this. Regards, Neil
