plusnet new network

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 06-Jan-16 23:08:37)

Edited by jelv (Thu 07-Jan-16 09:33:41)

In reply to a post by kitz:

In reference to forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,16711.msg308130.html#msg308130:

Myths

Plusnet is highly unlikely to ever use WBC, nor do BT RetailConsumer use WBC. This is a myth I see again and again on other forums that really needs to be put to bed.

Why on earth would a BT owned company use a third party (eg Murphx) for backhaul transit when BT own what is supposedly one of the best CORE networks with the most redundancy. It would be like British airways flying all their passengers on Virgin Planes

Edited by deleted (Thu 07-Jan-16 13:25:47)

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 07-Jan-16 09:26:59)

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 07-Jan-16 10:11:36)

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Plusnet is highly unlikely to ever use WBC, nor do BT Consumer use WBC. This is a myth I see again and again on other forums that really needs to be put to bed.

Why on earth would a BT owned company use a third party (eg Murphx) for backhaul transit when BT own what is supposedly one of the best CORE networks with the most redundancy. It would be like British airways flying all their passengers on Virgin Planes

In reference to forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,16711.msg308130.html#msg308130:

Plusnet is highly unlikely to ever use WBC, nor do BT retail use WBC. This is a myth I see again and again on other forums that really needs to be put to bed.

Why on earth would a BT owned company use a third party (eg Murphx) for backhaul transit when BT own what is supposedly one of the best CORE networks with the most redundancy. As Ive said elsewhere, it would be akin to British airways flying all their paying passengers on Virgin Planes. They'd be paying their competitor for transit when they own their own perfectly good routing. :no:

Edited by jelv (Thu 07-Jan-16 09:42:22)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

... it seems very likely this is a move to WBC dedicated (which is still BTw core network but not the shared MSIL's).

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I agree in the light of stuff I have seen since that they aren't going to WBC, but what has Murphx got to do with it?

Edited by jelv (Thu 07-Jan-16 14:22:21)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It wasn't showing as a quote at the time I asked . I assumed it was a comment from yourself, as I hadn't read the relevant kitz thread.

In reply to a post by jelv:

[insults ignored]
If they had of been going to WBC (as some others had suggested was a possibility) that means using a network other than BT's for the back haul. Murphx would then be one of the options.

In reference to www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/wbc_wbmc.htm#WBC_WBMC_difference:

WBC is intended as a replacement for DataStream which is when a service provider rented a Virtual Path from the DSLAM backhaul to the ISPs PoP. Often the amount of VP bandwidth rented on each DSLAM was insufficient and congestion would be common. With WBC, BTw is still responsible for backhaul routing

In reply to a post by jelv:

If they had of been going to WBC (as some others had suggested was a possibility) that means using a network other than BT's for the back haul. Murphx would then one of the options.

WBC, Dedicated WBMC & Shared WBMC in a nutshell

At this point if you are still wondering what is the difference is between Shared WMBC, Dedicated WBMC and WBC? In simple terms the answer is:-
� WBC is when the ISP connects via their own or third party network from each of the core locations.
�Dedicated WBMC uses BTw's core 21CN network to transport traffic from each of the core locations to the ISP's location(s) of choice. This still allows the ISP to have control of bandwidth traffic at the regional core locations.
�Shared WBMC is when BTw manage bandwidth between multiple ISPs over the whole 21CN network presenting the ISP with a single host link.

Edited by adslmax (Fri 08-Jan-16 17:45:13)

In reply to a post by jelv:

Moving to a new network was surely a golden opportunity for Plusnet to move in to the 21st century with IPv6.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

BT are due to start rolling out within weeks.

In reply to a post by ChrisAO:

Try doing a tracert to ntp.plus.net I think you will find it obvious when/if you have moved.

Edited by Alucidnation (Fri 08-Jan-16 21:47:42)

In reply to a post by ChrisAO:

Try doing a tracert to ntp.plus.net I think you will find it obvious when/if you have moved.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Is anyone aware of any other signs?

Edited by professor973 (Sat 09-Jan-16 02:46:39)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It's a shame. That means that although Plusnet were one of the first mainstream DSL ISPs to trial IPv6, they will probably be one of the last to roll-out, now that the Sky roll-out is well underway and BT are due to start rolling out within weeks.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

What difference will it make to joe public anyway? i don't care if i am using IPv5 or 6 as long as I can get on the net at a decent speed.

I know IPv4 addresses are running out, but at the moment it is not concerning me, also the majority of routers will not work with Ipv6 anyway.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

If the website you want to connect to is only available over IPv6 you just won't be able to see it. Even if you know the name. Say you're into cars, and the latest interesting supercar is on http://supercarreviews.com but that site is only able to get an IPv6 address as all the IPv4 have run out.

In asia there are already websites only on IPv6, but currently none are in English.

IPv4 HAS run out. There are none left that have not been allocated - this is why ISPs are starting to trade address blocks, with the geo-IP affects people have seen. Routers can be updated, its a pretty pathetic router that doesn't have IPv6 support.

Windows since 2000, Mac OS from the same time, Linux forever, iOS and Android and Windows Phone all have supported IPv6.

Its just the ISPs we are waiting on.

In reply to a post by jelv:

Have you tried playing this little game: http://loopsofzen.co.uk

In reply to a post by jelv:

Moving to a new network was surely a golden opportunity for Plusnet to move in to the 21st century with IPv6.

Today, we've had confirmation that not only does the new network not support IPv6, they are not saying "coming soon" which I would have expected, but they've no timescale for introducing it!

In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

In reply to a post by jelv:

Moving to a new network was surely a golden opportunity for Plusnet to move in to the 21st century with IPv6.

Today, we've had confirmation that not only does the new network not support IPv6, they are not saying "coming soon" which I would have expected, but they've no timescale for introducing it!

Personally, I would have thought moving to IPv6 at the same time as moving users to a new platform would be a very unwise decision. Better to do them separately.

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

Just done that and got...

1 lo0.10.central10.pcl-bng02.plus.net 195.166.130.151 10.456 ms 10.863 ms 10.595 ms

Edited by Andrue (Sat 09-Jan-16 14:46:20)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Wrt to moving users to IPv6 simultaneously, perhaps you are right. However, for the new network not even to support it after years of trialling seems very odd.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

Just done that and got...

1 lo0.10.central10.pcl-bng02.plus.net 195.166.130.151 10.456 ms 10.863 ms 10.595 ms

Your first hop is to a central router? How odd. Are you not using a router yourself?

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

Just done that and got...

1 lo0.10.central10.pcl-bng02.plus.net 195.166.130.151 10.456 ms 10.863 ms 10.595 ms

Your first hop is to a central router? How odd. Are you not using a router yourself?

Yes, but it's a Ubiquiti edge router Poe, via btor modem.

I'm reasonably sure I posted the results in the right order!

1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213

C:\Users\aw1>tracert ntp.plus.net
 Tracing route to ntp.plus.net [212.159.6.9]
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
  1    10 ms    12 ms    10 ms  lo0.10.central11.pcl-bng03.plus.net [195.166.130.165]  2    11 ms    12 ms    12 ms  irb.11.PCL-CR02.plus.net [84.93.249.98]
  3    11 ms    11 ms    17 ms  ae1.ptw-cr02.plus.net [195.166.129.2]  4    48 ms    11 ms    13 ms  po2.ptw-gw02.plus.net [195.166.129.39]
  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.  6    12 ms    11 ms    11 ms  cdns01.plus.net [212.159.6.9]
 Trace complete.

Edited by awontroba (Sat 09-Jan-16 15:56:46)

In reply to a post by Apprentice:

It's mentioned here:-

https://support.aa.net.uk/IPv6_Only

As you say Joe public isn't aware of this stuff and just wants the internet to work.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Also, carrier grade NAT will need to be increasingly deployed on IPv4 so that IP addresses can be shared. This means, for people on CGN, they can no longer open up listening ports for things like mail, web & ftp servers, peer to peer software, VoIP/SIP and online games.

If the customers had IPv6 in addition to their CGN IPv4 addresses, they could open up listening ports and communicate with each other without issue.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Which most people have no idea about and do not care about as long as things are working.

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

How many hops should i let the trace route perform?

I only get the three and then all i get are *

In reply to a post by blueacid:

I speculate web hosting companies will start adding a surcharge for IPv4 but not charging for IPv6.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Windows since 2000, Mac OS from the same time, Linux forever, iOS and Android and Windows Phone all have supported IPv6.
Its just the ISPs we are waiting on.

In reply to a post by MrTAToad2:

Could that be why I've had continual disconnections/re-connections today ?

Edited by jelv (Sat 09-Jan-16 19:21:57)

1 4 ms 3 ms 4 ms BThomehub.home [192.168.1.254]
2 11 ms 14 ms 13 ms lo0-central10.pcl-ag03.plus.net [195.166.128.184]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.168]
4 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms xe-10-2-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.200]
5 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms po2.pcl-gw01.plus.net [195.166.129.41]
6 13 ms 12 ms 10 ms FWDR-10.FWDR-6.FWDR-159.FWDR-212 [212.159.6.10]

In reference to community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,147447.msg1298316.html#msg...:

Does the new network support IPv6 (and if not, why not)?

In reference to community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,147447.msg1298330.html#msg...:

Not yet. We don't currently have any time scale for this. We don't have any further comments on this at the moment.

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

In reply to a post by ChrisAO:

Try doing a tracert to ntp.plus.net I think you will find it obvious when/if you have moved.

Just done that and got......................
Invalid traceroute data ( 9 * * te2-1-4.ptw-ssw01.plus.net (195.166.129.157) 13.230 ms !A)

In reply to a post by ChrisAO:

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

In reply to a post by ChrisAO:

Try doing a tracert to ntp.plus.net I think you will find it obvious when/if you have moved.

Just done that and got......................
Invalid traceroute data ( 9 * * te2-1-4.ptw-ssw01.plus.net (195.166.129.157) 13.230 ms !A)

Are you still getting that? Is it consistent?
Apart from which, posting the whole tracert maybe significant.
Bob said here that all tracert's would be similar to the one's posted previously.

In reply to a post by jelv:

Issues with configuring EU equipment are irrelevant. Enabling IPv6 on a network doesn't mean everyone has to use it and if the EU's equipment isn't configured for IPv6 it just won't be used and they will carry on using IPv4. As no router ever supplied by Plusnet has ever been configured for IPv6 only geeks who knew what they were doing would pick it up from the beginning.

Going beyond that, if they'd said the new network is IPv6 ready but we won't be turning it on for a few weeks because of the points you've made, that would be fine. But no, they've said "no timescale" - that is pretty terrible.

Edited by gt94sss2 (Sat 09-Jan-16 19:56:38)

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I never saw IPv6 in windows xp or windows 7 for that matter the first I saw it is Windows 8

In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

You have to accept a) ... and b) the BT Group is unlikely to run out of IPv4 addresses any time soon for their own customers..

In reply to a post by jelv:

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I never saw IPv6 in windows xp or windows 7 for that matter the first I saw it is Windows 8

When I was on the Plusnet IPv6 trial I had IPv6 running on both Win 7 and XP with minimal effort - turned it on and it worked! Took a little longer to configure the Technicolor TG582.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

How very odd that both BT Consumer and Plusnet are getting many cases of customers being denied access to sites such as BBC iPlayer, due to not being in the UK. Having bought blocks registered to CPs in other countries and many sites records not recognising the change of location for the block.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

]How very odd that both BT Consumer and Plusnet are getting many cases of customers being denied access to sites such as BBC iPlayer, due to not being in the UK.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 09-Jan-16 22:58:59)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Contrary to what was asserted. Plusnet have certainly not been able to rely on BT Consumer for bailout on the issue.

In reply to a post by blueacid:

That's the point though, the ISPs need to pull finger to make it so that more and more users CAN access them. Because increasingly it'll be hard to obtain IPv4 addresses for hosting new services etc. I speculate web hosting companies will start adding a surcharge for IPv4 but not charging for IPv6.

It also makes the interesting point: can an IPv4 ISP still say they're providing internet access when they don't have IPv6?

In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

You have to accept a) most of Plusnet's customers don't care about IPv6 and b) the BT Group is unlikely to run out of IPv4 addresses any time soon for their own customers..

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Are you suggesting that these IP addresses are/were BT Global Services USA branch owned?

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 10-Jan-16 14:04:47)

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Good point.
Anyway you should realise by now that we are always slow in this country and are years behind other countries. ADSL was almost outdated when it came to the UK, FTTC is out of date as well.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Are you suggesting that these IP addresses are/were BT Global Services USA branch owned?

I was under the impression they were obtained from Infonet, a Californian company. And yes, it's registered with ARIN not RIPE:

https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-146-200-0-0-1/pf...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

So why haven't BT updated the registration details with ARIN?

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Updated it to what?

Infonet Services Corporation is still an active/legal company and the owner of the block of addresses.

I don't believe the block can be transferred between RIRs.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

This is what it says already. That fact that ownership is listed as Infonet, is largely irrelevant.

Edited by deleted (Sun 10-Jan-16 15:36:43)

In reply to a post by philippercival:

Well my speeds seem to have gone up 3-5Mps recently. This could of course be something to do with spedtest.net, but I always use the same server when testing.

My modem has been connected for 38 days 7 hours 58 minutes 56 seconds
and is showing Line rate (kbit/s) 66999 19999 Not sure if that has changed.

2013 3521kwh,   2014 3435kwh, 2015 to 30th June 1991kwh

Edited by philippercival (Sun 10-Jan-16 20:57:32)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

This is really because TCP/IP wasn't designed for geo-location, and its companies such as MaxMind whom have set themselves up as Geo-IP organisations, to help people like the BBC protect their regional content.

IP space is tradable, and the network works, its the Digital Rights Management that starts to go wrong as we are trying to create national borders on a medium that never had any.

Edited by Andrue (Sun 10-Jan-16 21:56:58)

In reply to a post by philippercival:

Well my speeds seem to have gone up 3-5Mps recently ...

My modem has been connected for 38 days 7 hours 58 minutes 56 seconds
and is showing Line rate (kbit/s) 66999 19999 Not sure if that has changed.