Worked for me
Realising I had gone to BT in error & thus unlikely to find anything helpful I clicked 'Get me out of here'
BT may insist that it is committed to a smooth transition to the new interwebs address system – IPv6 – but a quick glance at the company's corporate website last month left some Brits questioning the one-time national telco's promise. That's because the telecoms giant embarrassingly failed to spot the fact that its security …
This post has been deleted by its author
The main problem with sixxs is one of the guys in charge is on some sort of ego power trip .
Stick with he.net or hexago if you want a free local broker that isn't in danger of being switched off for no reason by someone who behaves more like a basement geek IRC operator than a professional.
One typical example I just googled: http://www.habets.pp.se/sixxs.net-sucks.php
I'm not sure it's specific to IPv6. I've seen the updated certificate on a V6-capable connection, and the expired certificate on a IPV4-only connection (as well as vice versa). I think they have a CDN node that still hold the old certificate.
A colleague reported it via twitter, and was told (by @btcare) "Everything seems fine from our end".
And The Reg's plans to show their support by IPv6 by putting up a single AAAA record and actually bothering to enable it for a single website, obviously show up BT's national-telco for not bothering to enable it for every single one of their customers?
Rule #1: You can post a snide article about IPv6 support when your website supports it. (And, yes, mine does).
Until then, you're just adding to the problem, not leading the way towards adoption.
And The Reg's plans to show their support by good security practice by having our usernames and passwords sent in clear text to this forum rather than bothering to enable https for a single website?
Rule #1: You can post a snide article about security when your website supports it.
Until then, you're just adding to the problem, not leading the way towards adoption.
Although this is, indeed, correct it still does not exclude a tech journalism site from eating their own dog-food.
It would take a phone call to your host, a few grand, and a bit of tinkering to enable both IPv6 access and SSL access (at least for the login stage, blanket SSL might impact the number of servers required, etc.).
But it annoys me that The Reg, Slashdot, all these "Ha, look how stupid these people are to not enable IPv6 / SSL / SPF / Whatever already" sites never have it enabled.
If I can do it in an afternoon for my own personal dedicated server, it shouldn't take the Reg this many years of snarky comments to also enable it for themselves. Hell, it's not like IPv6 even costs money on new product - anything you have almost certainly already supports it so even a limited never-ending "beta" would show you what percentage of people are likely to use it.
It was broken a lot more recently than that, last year IIRC. AFAICT there was simply no server on the address given by teh AAAA record. I did report it to them, but several months later it was still offline.
If someone the size of, and with the resources of, BT can't get it right ...