> 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 operation teams don't have time/want to mess around in old code and systems (there are a lot) and the developers are focussed on making new things (been quite a lot of sport and stuff the last couple of years to keep them busy). There's no excuses though, it'll be done as large chunks of legacy are replaced (mostly outsourced so no refresh until new contracts and lots needs CDNs to upgrade). > I suspect the problem is finding a reason *for* them to turn on IPv6. There is a good reason, because we should, it's just not as high up the list as other things (we tried to make things good with multicast but ISPs wouldn't use it so the effort was wasted, some see v6 the same way) > Access ISPs only succeed at scale, working on miniscule margins > in a cut-throat market, and have to minimise every cost. s/have to/choose to/ As a consumer it's great to have everyone undercutting each other but they don't realise it's a race to the bottom and the last standing hope to make it up later. We had this with iplayer. A popular access ISP complained when it was announced that it'd double their traffic. They were charging around 15/month (so a big deal when BT backhaul was 100+/Mb/s). Several years later when iplayer eventually launched they complained again, they were now charging around 7/month. If you don't pay your ISP enough you're no going to get much. brandon
