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

Discussion in 'The Pub (Off topic discussion)' started by drmike, Jul 4, 2014.

  1. drmike

    drmike 100% Tier-1 Gogent

    8,573
    2,717
    May 13, 2013
    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:

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

    jhadley New Member Verified Provider

    151
    25
    May 18, 2013
    Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Burst (UK) "sold" equipment they didn't own to UKFast as part of the deal
     
    Francisco and drmike like this.
  3. MartinD

    MartinD Retired Staff Retired Staff Verified Provider

    1,410
    1,278
    May 15, 2013
    Killing off the Burst UK company (liquidation) meaning they lose all the debt but hopefully grab the customers. Underhand win.
     
    drmike likes this.
  4. drmike

    drmike 100% Tier-1 Gogent

    8,573
    2,717
    May 13, 2013
    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:

     
  5. drmike

    drmike 100% Tier-1 Gogent

    8,573
    2,717
    May 13, 2013
    Then at the very end of July 2013, Burst announced the UK subisidiary acquisition by UKFast , which went like this:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2014
  6. Jack

    Jack Active Member

    579
    129
    May 15, 2013
    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?
     
  7. drmike

    drmike 100% Tier-1 Gogent

    8,573
    2,717
    May 13, 2013
    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...
     
  8. rds100

    rds100 New Member Verified Provider

    733
    300
    May 18, 2013
    Maybe they want to get rid of the "Burst" name. It brings bad karma.
     
    drmike likes this.
  9. Lee

    Lee Retired Staff Retired Staff Verified Provider

    418
    205
    Mar 25, 2013
    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 likes this.
  10. drmike

    drmike 100% Tier-1 Gogent

    8,573
    2,717
    May 13, 2013
    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..
     
  11. rds100

    rds100 New Member Verified Provider

    733
    300
    May 18, 2013
    Actually it's /22 (1024 IPs) per LIR and that's it.
     
    drmike likes this.
  12. Francisco

    Francisco Company Lube Verified Provider

    2,476
    1,770
    May 15, 2013
    Still? I thought it increased to 2048 with the new space IANA gave them. Maybe I'm thinking of APNIC?

    Francisco
     
  13. Jack

    Jack Active Member

    579
    129
    May 15, 2013
    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:

    1. 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.
    2. LIRs receive only one /22, even if their needs justify a larger allocation.
    3. 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.
    4. Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
     
  14. S-Jack

    S-Jack New Member

    13
    0
    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.