Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Cairney]

On 06/05/2020 23:25, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
> Possibly 51/8 which was allocated to the Department of Work and Pensions, and 
> parts of which were sold off when they worked out how much they were worth...
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32826353
>
> Cheers,
> Matt


While I have no insight into the accuracy of the BBC news assertion that "The 
first group of 150,000 addresses has been snapped up by a Norwegian firm called 
Altibox for about £600,000"..

I have it on erm, good authority, that subsequent /15's from this range were 
offered at much closer to market rates for pre-RIR legacy space with once 
careful owner.. who apparently only used them to join the Church webcast on a 
Sunday ;)


And without drawing any comparisons to other 'public' assets which have been 
sold off in the past, a public institution holding a large block of IPv4 space 
without using it does not seem in the best interests of the nation or wider 
Internet..

IMHO it would seem fairly logical to divest this asset and reinvest the capital 
somewhere that standard to bring greater rewards, perhaps even with some kind 
of dividend or regular interest payment that im sure could be put to better use 
than assigning public v4 address to printers ;)

Paul

[uknof] France - Fixed Line Broadband & Mobile Data Sims

[Darren Wright]

Hi Everyone.

Can anyone recommend on-list or off-list a company who can supply Fixed Line 
Broadband & Mobile Data Sims in France as we have a requirement? 

If this was to be delivered over L2TP, we would need a small amount of rack 
space for network equipment and also a link back to Telehouse North in London.

Many thanks in advance. 

Kind Regards,

Darren Wright
Managing Director

Tel: +44 330 135 9663
Website: http://www.zonebroadband.co.uk

The information in this email is confidential and solely for the use of the 
intended recipient(s). If you receive this email in error, please notify the 
sender and delete the email from your system immediately. In such 
circumstances, you must not make any use of the email or its contents

Views expressed by an individual in this email do not necessarily reflect the 
views of Zone Telecommunications Ltd.

Computer viruses may be transmitted by email. Zone Telecommunications Ltd 
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this 
email. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. It 
is possible that information may be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender does not accept 
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which 
arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

Zone Telecommunications Ltd t/a Zone Broadband

North East Office: Communications House, Lintonville Terrace, Ashington, 
Northumberland, NE63 9UN
Registered Office: Edenthorpe, Grove Road, Rotherham, South Yorkshire, S60 2ER.

Registered in England and Wales: 10621892

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Tim Bray]

On 06/05/2020 16:41, Paul Bone wrote:


Public IPv4 addresses direct on PCs, Mobile Devices on Guest Wifi 
Networks, internal Printers I have seen this with my own eyes.




There is nothing wrong with this.  And the universities aren't going to 
change this unless there is an economic driver to do it.


And if the university was going to stay IPv4 only and do RFC1918, they 
would need a massive Carrier grade nat infrastructure.  These guys have 
big connections and so would be really expensive.   And loads of ports.  
You can't stick 5000 users behind 1 IPv4 and have it work.   Plus these 
guys have loads of departments who run their own networks, vlans, 
partner institutions   scope for conflict between 1918 space is 
massive.


And nat introduces single points of failure, unless you spend even more 
money.



What might happen is something like this:

1) university deploys IPv6 (presume dual stack)

2) Cost of CG nat comes lower as bandwidth use and number of ports in 
use on IPv4 reduces.   (because many of the big bandwidth hogs are V6 
enabled)


3) Price of IPv4 keeps rising

4) There becomes an point where the sale price of IPv4 becomes 10 times 
higher than the hassle of renumbering, natting and IPv6ing. And the uni 
might sell some space.  But they will still have an IPv4 network which 
wasn't as good as it was before.


(there are probably loads of other orgs sat on IP space who would sell 
first)



Otoh, one could just find a strugging hosting company with some IPv4 
allocations.  Buy them.  Do a Mythic and find the users who don't really 
need a IPv4 address.   Reuse and sell on.   (except it looks like Mythic 
have already practiced at this, so others can play catchup at the back.  
There's a uknof talk or 2 all about it. )


It's kind of like the same story as a housing developer who buys a 
knackered bit of waste land and builds 50 flats.


In summary, there is an IPv4 market.  Just like there is a market for 
land/housing.  And a market for gas (there didn't used to be a market 
for wholesale gas in europe, but that's another story)


--
Tim Bray
Huddersfield, GB
t...@kooky.org
+44 7966479015

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Tim Bray]

On 06/05/2020 16:41, Jonathan McDowell wrote:

I'm more disappointed at how software companies don't push for v6 on
their developer setups. How do we expect solid code out there that
doesn't fall over or just have UI glitches when it experiences v6, if
the developer and QA have never had a v6 setup?


I have the opposite.  Some things don't work on IPv4. Had IPv6 for too long.

Internal and dev systems.


--
Tim Bray
Huddersfield, GB
t...@kooky.org
+44 7966479015

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Giles Coochey]

Yes, as advised off list, this is the one that comes to mind.

On 06/05/2020 22:12, Leo Vegoda wrote:

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:42 PM Giles Coochey  wrote:

On 27/04/2020 17:14, Paul Bone wrote:

If I recall 54/8 or 45/8 or something similar, is assigned to the UK
Dept of Something, they have ultimately said that if such an address
appeared on the Internet then it would amount to a breach of national
security.

You might be thinking of 25/8, which is allocated to the MoD.


--
Giles Coochey

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Giles Coochey]

On 27/04/2020 17:14, Paul Bone wrote:

If I recall 54/8 or 45/8 or something similar, is assigned to the UK 
Dept of Something, they have ultimately said that if such an address 
appeared on the Internet then it would amount to a breach of national 
security.


Can't remember the exact prefixes, but there is hoarding of IPv4 
addresses going on, at the highest levels.


--
Giles Coochey

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Andrew Veitch]

Is there a reason why the educational institution should have to 
renumber into
unique IPv6 addressing, when the aforementioned ISP (where we came in) 
could
surely just acquire some (additional) unique IPv6 addresses for its own 
requirements?


On 2020-05-06 17:31, Paul Bone wrote:
It is what unique address are for, But it should be done with IPv6 
unique

addresses.



On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:23, Aled Morris 


wrote:


On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:00, Paul Bone  wrote:

> Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to 
work.


Yes - was is the key word here, well with regards to IPv4. NAT has 
worked
absolutely fine for the vast majority of outbound service 
requirements for

a long time



For certain very low values of "absolutely fine".  The damage to the
growth and development of new services however, and the negative 
impact on
security and protocols, not so good.  Think of all the time and 
effort has
been wasted by engineers dealing with NAT issues.  That effort isn't 
free.





and a University does not need a /16



Who says?

Nothing wrong with Royal Hollowing College allocating an IPv4 
address from
their 134.219.0.0/16 to a printer or some other "lowly" device; for 
one
thing it makes it a lot easier when they merge with Bedford College 
and
don't have to renumber anything.  It's what unique addresses are 
for.


Aled

--

Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Bone]

Existing installations should also be v6 enabled.

Equipment refresh projects are the perfect opportunity to do this.

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:42, Stuart Henderson  wrote:

> On 2020/05/06 17:31, Paul Bone wrote:
> >
> > It is what unique address are for, But it should be done with IPv6
> unique addresses.
>
> For a new installation, yes.
>
> --
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Tom Hill]

On 06/05/2020 16:47, Pete Stevens wrote:
> 
> The acquisition problem is overlapping RFC1918 space - and/or running
> out in the new larger combined entity. I know people who've implemented
> nested NAT and split horizon DNS so that each aqcuired company has a
> different view of their internal RFC1918 space with their internal
> services being on different RFC1918 IPs depending on which part of the
> building you're in.
> 
> We're a little company using small amounts of RFC1918, but when we
> acquired BHost we still couldn't join their management LAN in a sensible
> fashion, fortunately all the servers had v6 so we ignored it and moved
> management to v6. Far far quicker.
> 
> 192.168.0.0/16 is home DSL, and your DMZ, and your other DMZ and your
> VPN endpoint
> 
> If your acquired company has it's internal network on globally unique v6
> space it's all a bit easier.


How is this relevant to what you'd previously asserted?

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[David Reader]

On 6 May 2020 17:14:24 Richard Halfpenny 
 wrote:
IIRC the student radio station famously racked up a rather large 
transatlantic bandwidth bill by running a RealAudio server and one show 
attracted a sizeable listenership from the USA!


Was that one me or did someone else do it again after?

I was invited for a chat about the ra server I ran for ramair after I 
helped myself to a whole /24... (the SU's NetWare 3 server routed that one..)


I dont recall the US audience.

Bradford computer centre were not only tolerant but very supportive with my 
taking of liberties on their network :)


143.53.221.. still rolls off my fingers too easily (albeit uselessly..) now.

These were the days of BT's SMDS network splitting itself in half 
regularly, and even 2Mbps being both HUGE and astronomically expensive.


d.

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2020/05/06 17:31, Paul Bone wrote:
> 
> It is what unique address are for, But it should be done with IPv6 unique 
> addresses.

For a new installation, yes.

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Nick Hilliard]

Tim Chown wrote on 06/05/2020 16:29:

Organisations have had 20 years to form a plan to adopt and deploy IPv6.  It’s 
not rocket science.


it's more to do with motivation than whether it's rocket science. 
Installing stable ipv4 connectivity was troublesome enough when it 
started, but the motivation was high.  IPv6 is an evolution of this with 
a level of gain that, regrettably, does not interest many people.


Nick

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Bone]

It is what unique address are for, But it should be done with IPv6 unique
addresses.



On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:23, Aled Morris 
wrote:

> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:00, Paul Bone  wrote:
>
>> > Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to work.
>>
>> Yes - was is the key word here, well with regards to IPv4. NAT has worked
>> absolutely fine for the vast majority of outbound service requirements for
>> a long time
>>
>
> For certain very low values of "absolutely fine".  The damage to the
> growth and development of new services however, and the negative impact on
> security and protocols, not so good.  Think of all the time and effort has
> been wasted by engineers dealing with NAT issues.  That effort isn't free.
>
>
>
>> and a University does not need a /16
>>
>
> Who says?
>
> Nothing wrong with Royal Hollowing College allocating an IPv4 address from
> their 134.219.0.0/16 to a printer or some other "lowly" device; for one
> thing it makes it a lot easier when they merge with Bedford College and
> don't have to renumber anything.  It's what unique addresses are for.
>
> Aled
>
> --
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Aled Morris]

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:00, Paul Bone  wrote:

> > Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to work.
>
> Yes - was is the key word here, well with regards to IPv4. NAT has worked
> absolutely fine for the vast majority of outbound service requirements for
> a long time
>

For certain very low values of "absolutely fine".  The damage to the growth
and development of new services however, and the negative impact on
security and protocols, not so good.  Think of all the time and effort has
been wasted by engineers dealing with NAT issues.  That effort isn't free.



> and a University does not need a /16
>

Who says?

Nothing wrong with Royal Hollowing College allocating an IPv4 address from
their 134.219.0.0/16 to a printer or some other "lowly" device; for one
thing it makes it a lot easier when they merge with Bedford College and
don't have to renumber anything.  It's what unique addresses are for.

Aled

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Richard Halfpenny]

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:53, Rob Evans  wrote:

> > Public IPv4 addresses direct on PCs, Mobile Devices on Guest Wifi
> Networks,
> > internal Printers I have seen this with my own eyes.
>
> Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to work.
>

The 6th form college I attended between '96-'98 had a /24 with all machines
publicly addressed.  I then went to Uni in '98 and all hosts addressed from
a /16 didn't feel out of place.  It was great - at both institutions you
could happily run your own servers etc as there was NO packet filtering at
all.  Different days back then, mind.  I remember the "Campus Firewall
Project" at Bradford did kick up a bit of a stink - suddenly lots of
freedoms were taken away on those public IPs.  Much sadness amongst CompSci
geeks but they did need to reign things in a bit - IIRC the student radio
station famously racked up a rather large transatlantic bandwidth bill by
running a RealAudio server and one show attracted a sizeable listenership
from the USA!

Rich.

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Bone]

> Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to work.

Yes - was is the key word here, well with regards to IPv4. NAT has worked
absolutely fine for the vast majority of outbound service requirements for
a long time and a University does not need a /16 so there could have been
an effort made to recover a lot of these addresses by RIPE but as far as
I'm aware this has never been approached. I suggested it to RIPE once but
that got thrown back!

However, that would only be a sticking plaster for a while and we do need
this anti-IPv6 nonsense that IT Managers still appear to have to move on.

Paul



On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:51, Rob Evans  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > One of which is the ridiculous amount of IPv4 addresses historically
> > assigned to some educational institutions by JISC :-)
>
> Most Universities have addresses directly allocated to them from days
> that pre-date the Regional Internet Registries (especially the /16s).
>
> > Public IPv4 addresses direct on PCs, Mobile Devices on Guest Wifi
> Networks,
> > internal Printers I have seen this with my own eyes.
>
> Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to work.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>


-- 
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Rob Evans]

Hi,

> One of which is the ridiculous amount of IPv4 addresses historically
> assigned to some educational institutions by JISC :-)

Most Universities have addresses directly allocated to them from days
that pre-date the Regional Internet Registries (especially the /16s).

> Public IPv4 addresses direct on PCs, Mobile Devices on Guest Wifi Networks,
> internal Printers I have seen this with my own eyes.

Those sound like features, and how the Internet was supposed to work.

Cheers,
Rob

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Pete Stevens]

A long way of saying, I don't agree that the fear of "never being
acquired" is a reason for a company to delay their adoption & use of IPv6.


The acquisition problem is overlapping RFC1918 space - and/or running
out in the new larger combined entity. I know people who've implemented
nested NAT and split horizon DNS so that each aqcuired company has a
different view of their internal RFC1918 space with their internal
services being on different RFC1918 IPs depending on which part of the
building you're in.

We're a little company using small amounts of RFC1918, but when we
acquired BHost we still couldn't join their management LAN in a sensible
fashion, fortunately all the servers had v6 so we ignored it and moved
management to v6. Far far quicker.

192.168.0.0/16 is home DSL, and your DMZ, and your other DMZ and your
VPN endpoint

If your acquired company has it's internal network on globally unique v6
space it's all a bit easier.

Pete


--
Pete Stevens
p...@ex-parrot.com
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/
https://www.mythic-beasts.com/
https://twitter.com/Mythic_Beasts

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Jonathan McDowell]

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 01:24:18PM +0100, Pete Stevens wrote:
> Things that IPv6 internally protects you from
>  - running out of RFC1918 space if your organisation gets big
>  - addgress overlap if you acquire someone / are acquired
>  - IP address costs if you can run your own things v6 only
> 
> I often wonder how you present the business case for never becoming huge
> and never being acquired to the shareholders.

Renumbering is the problem of the acquirer, not the acquiree. That's an
easy sell to the shareholders, because acquiring companies just assume
IT is one of those areas that can be easily merged for cost savings.

I'm more disappointed at how software companies don't push for v6 on
their developer setups. How do we expect solid code out there that
doesn't fall over or just have UI glitches when it experiences v6, if
the developer and QA have never had a v6 setup?

J.

-- 
This .sig brought to you by the letter E and the number 21
Product of the Republic of HuggieTag

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Bone]

I agree, but that has not happened, and several people have already raised
reasons why this has not happened.

One of which is the ridiculous amount of IPv4 addresses historically
assigned to some educational institutions by JISC :-)

Public IPv4 addresses direct on PCs, Mobile Devices on Guest Wifi Networks,
internal Printers I have seen this with my own eyes.

I have worked with a number of Universities on the JISC network and none of
the University IT teams were entertaining any kind of IPv6 deployment. They
had no desire to learn it (which as you say is not rocket science) and no
plans to implement.


On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:29, Tim Chown  wrote:

> > On 6 May 2020, at 16:17, Paul Bone  wrote:
> >
> > No, but as a small ISP you run out - which was the point of this initial
> discussion.
> >
> > Yes you can buy them, but why should we when there are excesses not
> being used and wasted by some organisations.
>
> Organisations have had 20 years to form a plan to adopt and deploy IPv6.
> It’s not rocket science.
>
> Tim



-- 
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Tom Hill]

On 06/05/2020 16:20, Pete Stevens wrote:
> Otherwise you'll eventually become worth buying by someone who can
> reuse your space to do something more valuable.

Right, you suggested that one would have to convince their shareholders
of the business case for "never being acquired"? Shareholders like
money, last I checked.

You don't diminish your asset value of IPs as long as you're not
reducing the quantity that you have held. If you find ways to use less
of them/use any more than you do today, you're still not _losing_ value,
and are just as likely to be acquired as you were beforehand?

A long way of saying, I don't agree that the fear of "never being
acquired" is a reason for a company to delay their adoption & use of IPv6.

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Pete Stevens]

On Wed, 6 May 2020, Tom Hill wrote:

You don't lose IPv4 addresses just because you aren't buying more...


If you've a constant number of IPs in a growing company, that means
revenue per IP must continuously grow - you can't just expand your
business by doing more of what you do now, you have to change what you
do to make your use of IP space more valuable. Otherwise you'll
eventually become worth buying by someone who can reuse your space to do
something more valuable.

Pete

--
Pete Stevens
p...@ex-parrot.com
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/
https://www.mythic-beasts.com/
https://twitter.com/Mythic_Beasts

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Bone]

No, but as a small ISP you run out - which was the point of this initial
discussion.

Yes you can buy them, but why should we when there are excesses not being
used and wasted by some organisations.

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:12, Tom Hill  wrote:

> On 05/05/2020 13:24, Pete Stevens wrote:
> > I often wonder how you present the business case for never becoming huge
> > and never being acquired to the shareholders.
>
>
> You don't lose IPv4 addresses just because you aren't buying more...
>
> --
> Tom
>
>

-- 
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Tom Hill]

On 05/05/2020 13:24, Pete Stevens wrote:
> I often wonder how you present the business case for never becoming huge
> and never being acquired to the shareholders.


You don't lose IPv4 addresses just because you aren't buying more...

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] London Dark Fibre

[Mehmet Akcin]

you can see detailed map of dark fiber providers and engage with them at
infrapedia.com (open source, free) project which keeps a database...

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:44 AM Simon Lockhart  wrote:

>
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> If it's only 10G then you might want to look at using a wavelength on
> somebody's
> wdm system instead rather than dark fibre. There will be many options for
> this,
> to pick one that shows prices: https://www.bogons.net/aboutus/prices.shtml
>
> Andy Hunter wrote:
>
> +1 for Bogons – Give Brandon a call – really helpful and reliable.
>
>
> Thanks for the recommendations, both - Brandon has already been in contact
> with Glen off-list.
>
> Simon
>
>

Re: [uknof] London Dark Fibre

[Simon Lockhart]

Stuart Henderson wrote:
> If it's only 10G then you might want to look at using a wavelength on 
> somebody's
> wdm system instead rather than dark fibre. There will be many options for 
> this,
> to pick one that shows prices: https://www.bogons.net/aboutus/prices.shtml 
> 
Andy Hunter wrote:
> +1 for Bogons – Give Brandon a call – really helpful and reliable.

Thanks for the recommendations, both - Brandon has already been in contact with 
Glen off-list.

Simon

Re: [uknof] London Dark Fibre

[Andy Hunter]

+1 for Bogons – Give Brandon a call – really helpful and reliable.


Andy

From: uknof 
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2020 at 14:01
To: glen watts 
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk 
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Dark Fibre
On 2020/05/06 11:19, glen watts wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm looking for some 10G dark fibre connectivity between THN and LD8 at a 
> decent price, could a
> kind soul point me in the direction of a good supplier or could a good 
> supplier reach out to me
> please?
>
> Much appreciated,
>
> Glen

If it's only 10G then you might want to look at using a wavelength on somebody's
wdm system instead rather than dark fibre. There will be many options for this,
to pick one that shows prices: https://www.bogons.net/aboutus/prices.shtml


Andy Hunter
Technical Director

IT Professional Services
Unit 2A & Unit 2B
Waterside Drive
Metrocentre East Business Park
Gateshead
Tyne & Wear
NE11 9HU

T. 0191 442 8300
F. 0191 442 8301


[https://www.itps.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/stayathomefooter.jpg]

[https://www.itps.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/esig/logo_retina.png] 
[https://www.itps.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/esig/logo_cyber_essentials.png]


[https://www.itps.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/esig/twitter.png]
  [https://www.itps.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/esig/facebook.png] 
   
[https://www.itps.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/esig/linkedin.png]  


Company No. 3930001 registered in England
VAT No. 734 1935 33 

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily those of 
ITPS. All emails received and sent to / from ITPS are monitored for information 
security purposes. This email is intended only for the named addressee - if you 
are not this person please inform us via supp...@itps.co.uk. Please don’t copy 
or distribute it. After letting us know it’s not for you, please delete the 
e-mail. Emails should not be considered to be totally secure as they pass 
through third party Internet services where it is possible they can be viewed. 
It is also possible for emails to be delayed, lost, or be potentially altered 
by unauthorised third parties whilst in transit. For secure email facilities 
please contact us and we can discuss how we can help you secure your emails. 
While ITPS takes all reasonable steps to minimise virus transmission risks, we 
can’t accept liability for any issues or losses you or your organisation may 
have as a result of a virus being contained within an email, any attachment the 
email may contain and or any data corruption or third-party interference with 
the email content.

Re: [uknof] London Dark Fibre

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2020/05/06 11:19, glen watts wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm looking for some 10G dark fibre connectivity between THN and LD8 at a 
> decent price, could a
> kind soul point me in the direction of a good supplier or could a good 
> supplier reach out to me
> please?
> 
> Much appreciated,
> 
> Glen

If it's only 10G then you might want to look at using a wavelength on somebody's
wdm system instead rather than dark fibre. There will be many options for this,
to pick one that shows prices: https://www.bogons.net/aboutus/prices.shtml

[uknof] London Dark Fibre

[glen watts]

Hi All,

I'm looking for some 10G dark fibre connectivity between THN and LD8 at a 
decent price, could a kind soul point me in the direction of a good supplier or 
could a good supplier reach out to me please?

Much appreciated,

Glen