For clarity - whilst most connectivity infrastructure in London is underground, it's almost always within a primary duct, so running new infrastructure is usually a case of pulling in a new cable as opposed to "ripping up the street".
In fact, anyone approved can use BTs own ducts and poles via their PIA product[1], which has created a resurgent and incredibly active market of "alternative" network providers ("alt nets"). London for example is now well served for broadband by Community Fibre, g.network, Hyperoptic and others alongside the incumbents.
It may be in a duct, but occasionally the manholes are in really awkward locations - like in the middle of an extremely busy road.
I've been waiting for symmetric fibre for a year, and they're trying to install it, but getting the permission to close the road to lift up the manhole is proving to be a challenge.
Yeah it's certainly not without issue, the network is full of blockages, collapsed ducts etc.
Traffic management and road closures can be hard work, we've had to wait over a year before for a road closure as it would affect multiple bus routes. (And as an aside, lockdown was extremely productive for network build like this!)
But my impression of London (from living there for a few years in the 2010s) was that it is very much a 6am-11pm city and everything is shut at night. Surely infrastructure work can take place during night shifts?
I found the experience of working in the city and living in Westminster frustrating, because shops, public transport and even pubs(!) would effectively have closed by the time you finished work.
It's a bit later nowadays, at least in the normal sorts of places you'd go out (Soho, Shoreditch, etc.). Though, what are you doing working until 11pm?
In any case you'll still find the roads can be busy at all hours. The night is used, as you say, for a lot of infrastructure type stuff which means the main roads are still busy, getting the city ready for the next day.
I no longer do - working in the City wasn't for me. And neither was living in England. A week in the summer and over Christmas turned out to be just the right amount of blighty for me.
Hyperoptic we're great. I could pay £5/month for a static IPv4 so I wasn't stuck behind CGNAT, their IPv6 worked great and I could use my own network equipment and they're provide the configs; though I hear they're less forthcoming with that info for people running not-ISP hardware these days.
First monthly contract I've parted ways with reluctantly (I moved home).
I got the first year free from one-month discounts by referring all my neighbours.
I was using a Uniquiti EdgeRouter and it was fairly trivial, then I switched to a pfSense box and it was a little harder but not much.
The hard part is that you have to clone the UDID (I think that was the value, sorry don't quite remember now), they used to allow any hardware to join the network but that's no longer the case; so you have the clone the value from the hardware they provide you with.
Don’t bother. Their IPv6 setup is notoriously broken. They have a number of IPv6 misconfiguration in their core switches which makes using IPv6 with your own hardware almost impossible.
Unfortunately it seems they’ve also let go of all their good network admin. It used to be possible to find someone at Hyperoptic capable of investigating and fixing these issues, but no more.
Something definitely changed around COVID time, they stopped providing the info to set up your own kit freely, they wouldn't put you in touch with L3+ tech anymore and you couldn't connect your own kit without cloning IDs.
I had an issue one time, around 2020 and I couldn't fit the life of me get past a zero-knowledge L1.
Back in 2017-18 when I joined they put me in touch with one of their network engineers who helped me configure my EdgeRouter.
I've been using their IPv6 for years on my Turris Omnia (TurrisOS is based on OpenWRT and also open source) plugged directly to their switch. Everything works via DHCPv6 and RA. I get a /56 PD that I can use for my LAN subnets as I wish. The IPv6 Internet is fast and stable.
I also used their IPv6 setup for years. But then it got broken after they did maintenance, and I’ve never been able to get it fixed.
I’ve talked to insiders about this stuff, and there’s a number of known long running misconfigurations issues. Which unfortunately I’ve probably been hit with. I’ve also been told the odds of it getting fix via support is zero at this point.
In my case their switches refuse to assign an IP to any of my gear. My config hasn’t changed, and I’ve done some pretty in depth debugging. TL;DR I need to spoof some non-compliant with my gear to get their gear to play ball. I’ve zero interest in playing that game, I need IPv6 to be rock solid reliable, or it’s just not worth the effort.
And Outline already has Slack-integration. So someone ported the Slack integration to Teams and is selling it as a new product? Clever, if a bit provocative. I wonder if there'll still be a market for it once Outline gains Teams support as well.
1) I don't know which one is newer, outline.com is just the one that I know, never heard about the other one.
2) That's right! Nevertheless we have a problem where there are either 2...n software solutions with the same name (like here) or where the names are so fictional that you'd never guess what the software is about when hearing the name.
My point was: Let's find better ways to name our app/software, so that it's clearer which one we are talking about.
Trademark. There are a great many that are generic words. Fortunately they are limited to the markets the owner is participating in and the consumer confusion test relieves trademark squatting somewhat.
The TransferWise Acceptable Use Policy dated 24 July 2019 doesn’t allow VOIP business to use TW.
The blog post from SimWood is from 19th March 2020.
I’ll leave it to TW to explain when they changed their AUP, how come SimWood s was able to use them later, and also for SimWood to explain how come they didn’t track the AUP changes at TW, and instead felt the account closure to be sudden.
Both are valid addresses and can be assigned to hosts.
Network address is only really used for directly attached networks, non directly attached networks will route to any address in the block correctly.
Same for broadcast address, they're also relative to whatever block you're talking about at the time, so whilst 3.255.255.255 is the broadcast for 3.0.0.0/8 subnet it's just another "usable" address in the 3.0.0.0/5 subnet and when you send a packet then you, and probably your router, don't know what subnets in use on the other side :) (unless it's directly attached)
We're an ISP, most of our customers are businesses. Of those, around 50% opt for a pre-configured LAN (i.e. we do NAT and usually CGNAT too).
For the rest we provide a static IP address, so we'll allocate a /30 (block of 4), and they get a single usable address which they will assign to their own manged router/firewall.
For the majority of our customers "networking" is either handled as overflow for their in/out IT resource or often by someone remotely savvy with tech.
For most of these people networking ranges from an infrequent concern to a vague mystery that can be sorted with a bit of googling.
For most, deploying and testing IPv6 has absolutely no upside and quite a bit of potential downside, that's because "everything works" on IPv4 and configuring IPv6 is just another potential source of error.
In addition, most people who opt for this setup do so in order to expose some internal service to the internet (port forward), again there is usually zero incentive to also deploy IPv6 as they can't be sure their client device will be using v6 when they come to connect, but they know it will support v4, everything does.
And so herin lies the issue, it's chicken and egg, they know they need v4, not every server they access or client who accesses their forwards supports v6, so they _have_ to implement v4. As such they see no reason to "faff" about with IPv6, and I don't really blame them.
We're considering charging more for dedicated v4 and possibly offering a free translation service (another point of failure :() but honestly, most would just pay the extra and then just resent us a little more. Our competitors continue to acquire v4 space as we do, this is what our customers want.
Until there is v6 only content (but who is incentivised to do this?) then I can't see any incentive for these users.
I made a major push to try to get IPv6 running at a small business.
In the end, despite the ISP at the business supplying IPv6, and getting some client side IPv6 going with OTHER ISPS (a pain) it fell over because.
1) Things like the VPN client software didn't get routes right when client side network was IPv6 oriented so VPN connections broke - a no go.
2) We had to continue to offer ipv4, as folks in the field were not guaranteed an ipv6 connection back.
3) The WAN fallback / failover stuff didn't seem to work well with IPv6 (another ISP to work out IPv6 with).
4) Security folks continue to be worried about giving all machines in a business globally routable addresses. The tools say NOT to filter ICMP when you run ipv6 reachability, the security people say to filter ICMP. Too much of pain to figure out who is right and if/how ipv6 changed ICMP
5) ipv6 seemed to purposely make this transition harder than it needed to be. I don't get why they couldn't have kept a simpler / more familiar framework with ipv6 as an option, even if less ideal. Ie, DHCP vs autoconfig stuff, ICMPv4 style instead of having security folks worrying me about the weird things unfiltered ICMPv6 might do. Seriously, make the goodies / cool stuff the add ons.
>Too much of pain to figure out who is right and if/how ipv6 changed ICMP
then let me make this easy for you: ICMP has become a vital part of the inner workings of an IPv6 network. You will break all kinds of functionality by dropping ICMPv6 packets.
If you are concerned, then drop ICMP echo requests and replies, but absolutely do not drop any other ICMP packets or you'll be one of those people that turn off ipv6 "because it's too hard to make it work" (no shit - when you actively break something, it's hard to make it work).
> ICMP has become a vital part of the inner workings of an IPv6 network. You will break all kinds of functionality by dropping ICMPv6 packets.
You've just neatly described my experience (and naivety), because I've always dropped ICMP and wondered why ipv6 never worked. In all of the articles I've read on getting ipv6 to work, this had never been explained.
The key thing with ICMP is for the love of Pete, don't drop valid ICMP type 3 (destination unreachable), specifically subtype 4 (fragmentation needed, but don't fragment set), because that breaks many real world connections on both IPv4 and IPv6.
Thanks for trying! I did the same round. Tried to get v6, and finally gave up, because everything was broken in very stupid ways.
> I don't get why they
Because it happened in the early 90s, and since then all the RFCs that got layered upon that had to try and keep things consistent.
There could have been a simpler thing, but it was scrapped. IPv5 is missing for a reason.
And the goodies cannot be opt-in, otherwise no one will opt-in.
Of course this leads to a very slow deployment, because v4 with a lot of hacks just work, and will continue to work. It's easier to encapsulate things in DTLS (TLS + UDP) and gRPC and whatever (and deal with all of that in end user software) than trying to convert the whole World to IPv6.
> I don't get why they couldn't have kept a simpler / more familiar framework with ipv6 as an option, even if less ideal. Ie, DHCP vs autoconfig stuff
That's a statement made with 20 years of hindsight behind it. But if you had an extra 5 or so years of hindsight then it'd make more sense.
DHCP only predates IPv6 by two years (October 1993 on RFC 1531, vs December 1995 on RFC 1883). AppleTalk and Novell NetWare were still fairly common around that time. You're looking at DHCP as if it's ubiquitous, which indeed it is now, but it certainly wasn't while v6 was being developed and wouldn't be until a good few years afterwards.
In fact, router advertisements were defined in RFC 1256 in 1991, so they have two years of seniority on DHCP -- although I suppose you could make an argument that DHCP is a standardized set of BOOTP extensions, and that BOOTP has been around for longer.
Those are basically the same reasons why I don't use v6 at home and have turned it off in my home router. Everything just works with v4. v6 is a potential source of error and/or security risk.
I haven't felt the need to learn more about v6, and it is quite complex so it'll take me a day or so to learn enough to be able to configure my network and know that I haven't screwed that up. But I keep putting that off. There's far more interesting stuff to learn and do.
I would've gladly accepted and adopted a version that's just IPv4 plus 16 bits of extra address space, and anything else exactly the same. That would've solved the original address shortage problem, and would be a breeze to configure.
For me, and I think for a lot of people, the complexity and thus cost of v6 dwarfs the potential benefits and therefore that complexity is the primary force holding back its adoption.
I actually find IPv6 simpler than IPv4. It is extra address space plus some warts fixed.
However, at home I'm using IPv4 + henet tunnel, because the native IPv6 offer from the ISP is unacceptable. At work, we are using IPv4 only, and no plans to switch, because it would be extra work with zero benefits.
You are right, but it doesn't matter. Because even if v6 is easy to configure, usually the things you can't configure are broken and they are hard to fix. For example your upstream provider is stupid. Or a client's software, or some 3rd party server somewhere you have to live with.
My ISP broke their IPv4 gateway one weekend. Fortunately they have their IPv6 stuff working in parallel. I was surprised that only maybe half of the Internet is reachable via IPv6, and there was no pattern which sites worked and which didn't. There's still some work to be done before IPv6 is usable.
One Windows PC on our LAN got flipped into "internet sharing" mode, causing a DHCP battle which randomly killed IPv4 connectivity. That one was weird to diagnose at first since random sites still worked (ones with IPv6 support)
Too many customer devices don't support /31 subnets unfortunately, for example with Draytek we've seen an issue where it would accept the 255.255.255.254 subnet but we'd see a whole raft of connection issues making the connection unusable.
If we provide a dedicated IP for a connection where we provide the LAN we just put a single /32 on the loopback and NAT onto this which is obviously much more economic with addresses.
Because a lot of things that should be thrown into a volcano are used as routers. And routers need their interfaces configured. And the upstream interface needs to be in a network. And so that network needs a broadcast address, the router needs its own address, there needs to be a next hop address, and since you can't allocate 3, you do 4.
Homo Deus (the sequel as mentioned) answers the question of why he has formed his particular view of the future.
In essence, yes economic incentive is the basis for much of today's human corporation, but with growing AI/robotics, the same economic incentive will make much current human input unnecessary.
Then, for example, would counties see so many humans as a big cost? How do they solve that if they no longer need them to work?
You could have asked the same question in 1700: What will the state do with its inhabitants when they no longer work the fields or make wool? The answer is “something else”. The economy adapts, and unimaginable professions and social structures appear. I would be amazed if anyone in 1700 thought that programmer could be a profession.
And maybe we don't need as many as 6 billion people on earth, maybe one billion will do (the slow population growth in industrialized countries indicates that depopulation is possible). But the need for them won't disappear overnight; we are nowhere near artificial general intelligence, no matter what Ray Kurzweil tells you.
Your point is, of course correct: slow growth is growth. However, it worth clarifying that population growth in much of Europe is driven by immigration rather than natural growth, and therefore does demonstrate population decline which is offset by other regions population growth.
We were already using traefik as a proxy for our docker/swarm clusters and this is a single container drop in to add authentication to every traefik request.
It's still missing a few key features but it can get you started, we're testing the use of a single auth domain (so you don't have to add every internal service domain as a refirect_uri in Google - looks similar to how sso works) internally and we expect to release this shortly once finished.
Additionally, if you want an even lighter weight option, we also use, with great success, cloudflare's lua script on a few services we don't run with docker/traefik: https://github.com/cloudflare/nginx-google-oauth
I think it's safe to say you're underestimating Disney, they don't just knock out a kids film every year or so - they invest heavily in R&D and are pioneering many tech fields, animation, haptic feedback etc.
I understand they know how to do tech. Magic bands and their backend systems only really have to handle the number of visitors at their parks and hotels. I think that is much smaller scale than engineering something to provide streaming on-demand movies to the globe (which should be their goal). For their original content, they won't have licensing restrictions like Netflix does so the only thing holding them back would likely be tech.
Also from the article, they aren't doing the tech. They bought stake in a company that does MLB and ESPN streaming.
In fact, anyone approved can use BTs own ducts and poles via their PIA product[1], which has created a resurgent and incredibly active market of "alternative" network providers ("alt nets"). London for example is now well served for broadband by Community Fibre, g.network, Hyperoptic and others alongside the incumbents.
[1] https://www.openreach.co.uk/cpportal/products/passive-produc...