# Burst.net UK - Sold right? Why is UKFast Dropping BurstNet Customers?



## drmike (Jul 4, 2014)

Well it has been a year or so since Burst.net's UK assets were "sold".  I am quoting sold at this point, because although that is what was sold to us via press, it seems like something is afoul.

This is part of an email that went out to UKFast/Burst.net UK customers:



> It is with regret that we must inform you that we will no longer be able to provide service under the Burstnet platforms that we took over last year. Your service will continue to run until it's next billing due date, please ensure that you have taken copies of any data that you require and migrated the services you currently host with us.
> 
> We can offer you service under the UKFast brand and if you require a quote for this then you can do so online


Why are they - UKFast doing away with the Burst.net customers and killing the asset they bought?


----------



## jhadley (Jul 4, 2014)

Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Burst (UK) "sold" equipment they didn't own to UKFast as part of the deal


----------



## MartinD (Jul 4, 2014)

Killing off the Burst UK company (liquidation) meaning they lose all the debt but hopefully grab the customers. Underhand win.


----------



## drmike (Jul 4, 2014)

So when Burst.net bailed on their UK provider, they jumped to UKFast with 24 hours notice to customers...

This was just a nick over 1 year ago:



> Subject: NOTICE: BurstNET UK Maintenance Window - IMPORTANT
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:34:49 -0400
> 
> BurstNET Limited (http://www.burstnet.eu) is proud to announce it has partnered with UKFast (http://www.ukfast.co.uk) for our UK hosting operations. The partnership is part of BurstNET's ongoing growth strategy, and will allow us to maintain our competitive pricing in the UK market, as well as improve the performance and reliability of our services.
> ...


----------



## drmike (Jul 4, 2014)

Then at the very end of July 2013, Burst announced the UK subisidiary acquisition by UKFast , which went like this:



> UKFast Completes First Acquisition
> 
> Deal Grows Cloud Firm's Clients by 30%
> 
> ...


----------



## Jack (Jul 4, 2014)

Well, I think BurstNET EU had a decent number of v4 so thats the only reason I can see that UKFast would be interested in them.

From what I see on that WHT thread it looks like its VPS only? Could be license related as BurstNET US widely funded VEPortal I believe?


----------



## drmike (Jul 5, 2014)

Maybe you lads in the UK versed in structures and deals can theorize what UKFast is up with this and why... Things work differently in such matters elsewhere...

I am rather dumbfounded by UKFast's actions on this one...


----------



## rds100 (Jul 5, 2014)

Maybe they want to get rid of the "Burst" name. It brings bad karma.


----------



## Lee (Jul 5, 2014)

From a discussion I had earlier in the week from a decent source but all unverified, the suggestion is that the deal was very much £x up front then £x over time.  Apparently equipment was sub leased to be transferred once settled but much of it never was so UKFast were left holding the baby so to speak.  But take all that with a large degree of doubt without any verification.


----------



## drmike (Jul 5, 2014)

Could be the IPs as well - if Burst UK had received an allocation in the past / own IP block.

UKFast, for being outwardly such a big company isn't sitting on many IPs with their own allocation:

http://bgp.he.net/AS34934#_asinfo

IPs Originated (v4): 50,944

Someone metioned that current EU IP allocations are like 2048 chunks... plus we all know the cost to rent IPs over there...

I can see financing + leasing + pay a year out a sum + IP costs all contributing towards this intentional brand implosion..


----------



## rds100 (Jul 5, 2014)

drmike said:


> Someone metioned that current EU IP allocations are like 2048 chunks...


Actually it's /22 (1024 IPs) per LIR and that's it.


----------



## Francisco (Jul 6, 2014)

rds100 said:


> Actually it's /22 (1024 IPs) per LIR and that's it.


Still? I thought it increased to 2048 with the new space IANA gave them. Maybe I'm thinking of APNIC?

Francisco


----------



## Jack (Jul 6, 2014)

Francisco said:


> Still? I thought it increased to 2048 with the new space IANA gave them. Maybe I'm thinking of APNIC?
> 
> 
> Francisco



5.6 Use of last /8 for PA Allocations
The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. From then on the distribution of IPv4 address space will only be done as follows:


Allocations for LIRs from the last /8
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

LIRs may only receive one allocation from this /8. The size of the allocation made under this policy will be exactly one /22.
LIRs receive only one /22, even if their needs justify a larger allocation.
LIRs may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to the allocation policy in effect in the RIPE NCC service region at the time of application.
Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.


----------



## S-Jack (Jul 13, 2014)

I think it's just so they can charge people more, I am sure they'd transfer you to their machines & files for free. I left their Windows VPS when they started charging VAT & I wasn't really using it a lot it's just a private IP isn't it.


----------

