Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 20 Oct 2014, at 09:04, Adrian Kennard 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, had

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 :-)

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:34, Will Hargrave wrote: > > On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:01, Neil J. McRae 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 defensive ego-p

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 IP

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 the

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 t

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

nted to charge almost four hundred quid to add an IP >> block?? >> >> Peter Knapp >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk >> ] On >> Behalf Of Brian Candler >> Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06 &

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

er > Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06 > 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 £

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

] 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.

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, Brian.

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:01, Neil J. McRae 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 defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data >> germane to the subjec

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:51, "Scott Armitage" wrote: > > Don’t forget there are a number of big companies who are embracing IPv6 and > deploying within their organisations e.g. Continental, BMW, Goldman Sachs, > Space.Net. Many organisations can see a business case for IPv6. > And several of

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:22, "Will Hargrave" 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 >

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:19, Will Hargrave 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 > to the

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 17:15, Richard Patterson 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 multiple users behind one I

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 September 2014 20:42, Neil J. McRae wrote: > IPV6 will be here when we need it. > Indeed, IPv6 will be here when BT need it. Aled

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 to

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae 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 DOCSIS, > does

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Of course! We also paint your toenails yellow and send you to Yorkshire, Seansea or Glasgow. Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:53, "Alexander Harrowell" mailto:a.harrow...@gmail.com>> wrote: My printer didn't work over IPv4 on Wednesday; don't tell BT or they'll turn our service off fo

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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" wrote: >Leo, >As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this >industry are not atypical users. >The issue

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Leo, As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this industry are not atypical users. 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 print to it over IPv6 for example. Imagine t

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Deployment ! If only it was just about that part! Sent from my iPhone > On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:30, "Scott Armitage" wrote: > > >> On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:20, Neil J. McRae wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, "Scott Armitage" wrote: >>> >>> >>> Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industr

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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" mailto:md1...@md1clv.com>> wrote: On 5 September 2014 18:22, Neil J. McRae mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote: When something

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:20, Neil J. McRae wrote: > > >> On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, "Scott Armitage" 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). >> >

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 September 2014 18:22, Neil J. McRae 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 time to fix i

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, "Scott Armitage" 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 role at BT BT i

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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" wrote: > > Just to dive in on this debate. > > We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe > it's the right th

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 is

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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" 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 > > make CGN scale -

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 a

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 don't

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae wrote: > On 05/09/2014 17:47, "Will Hargrave" 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 about controlling oth

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 09/05/2014 12:47 PM, Will Hargrave wrote: >>> I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or AT&?T, >>> all of whom have penetration in the 20-60% range. > This is because i was talking about multiple ISPs, who have different > penetration rates, as one might expect. > > According t

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Indeed - would they have done that without it? Doubtful. Neil Sent from my iPhone > On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:27, "Keith Mitchell" 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 work - I

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 T

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 17:47, "Will Hargrave" 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 time

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 Sep 2014, at 17:07, 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. >> That¹s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (w

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 16:43, "Andy Davidson" mailto: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 lumpy. You co

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 16:41, "Will Hargrave" 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 from Co

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 steeri

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 Sep 2014, at 15:31, Neil J. McRae mailto: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 incompatible with NAT at

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:32, Neil J. McRae 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 acceptable i

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 08:49, "Andy Davidson" 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 acceptable in a broad

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 13:56, "Andy Davidson" 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 will get more l

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 be

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 09:43, Andy Davidson 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, since they know all t

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 to

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 09:42, "Christian de Larrinaga" mailto: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 Belfast so UK d

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 develo

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> why isn't www.bbc.co.uk reachable via IPv6? Nobody needs it to be. We did it for v6 day but that was just a home page and anything that didn't go too deep into the infrastructure behind the load balancers. Since then it's been slow going but the network has been done The problem is the operati

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> /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 hkp://subkeys.pgp.

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> >. 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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 September 2014 08:31, Neil J. McRae wrote: > On 05/09/2014 08:15, "Gavin Henry" wrote: > >>On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae wrote: >>> Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though! >>>:) Or is someone actually doing this (and have more than 75k customers >>>

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 4 Sep 2014, at 23:03, Neil J. McRae 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 connectivity with on

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 05/09/2014 08:15, "Gavin Henry" wrote: >On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae 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,

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae 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 :-( -- Kind Reg

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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)? On 5 Sep 2014, at 07:30, "Gavin Henry" wrote: >> Now, only one of these groups is really feeling the pain of addres

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

> 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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 but

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 wrote: > Would the owner of ... > > UK IPv6 Taskforce > http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ > > ... kindly close down the website. I see the last update as 2006'i

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 4 Sep 2014, at 18:45, Andy Davidson wrote: > One could make the same comment about frustrated users because of NAT44, > which is now the only way forward for all of the subscribers to service > providers which don’t have a v6 plan by now. This IPv6 thread soon to degenerate into calling each

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae 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 all of the subs

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 4 September 2014 16:19, Paul Mansfield 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, sitting on their old all

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Brandon Yes exactly folks will so it when it's right for them. Rolling out a mass market broadband service has to work with no issues - there is no way of rolling things out that dont work I am afraid. Cheers, Neil -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. n...@domino.org

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 s

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

>> 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 shari

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Tim, > >> On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:54, "Tim Chown" wrote: >> >>> On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:35, Neil J. McRae 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 intere

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Tim, > On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:54, "Tim Chown" wrote: > >> On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:35, Neil J. McRae 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

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:35, Neil J. McRae 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 comment which was

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

IPV6 will be here when its needed, the forum you need to convince to do it is called the market. A colleague in another place made an interesting comment which was their biggest challenge with IPV6 demployment has been the doomsday spouted by forums that says OMFG we are going to run out of IP add

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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 http://www.6uk.org.uk/2012/12/6uk-powerless-to-encourage-ipv6-adoption-board-res

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

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=19&confId=31 PS: https://ww

[uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Would the owner of ... UK IPv6 Taskforce http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ ... kindly close down the website. I see the last update as 2006'ish. Just saying. Martin PS: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just sa