2017 Ticket Sale

[AM91]

12 minutes ago, rebus said:

As long as the other guy pays his balance himself, then his ticket will get sent to his address.  

Perfect, thanks

[xploit]

Sadly I didnt get anywhere with booking a ticket this year - only had a holding page on my mobile on 4g but just had connection errors on my laptop.

Quite a few people have said the same so wonder if See have some sort of filtering to allow connections from mobiles to prioritise laptop/computer connections?

 

Ah well, on to the resale, wish me luck

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

white screen' reported by some.  Not seen any confirmation but I'm pretty sure restarting the browser would have fixed this.

Nope, it didn't.

I made a post here in the last week or two, suggesting people closed the browser and started again, so when I was constantly getting a white screen that's what i tried, and it didn't make a difference. I also tried clearing the cache and restarting.

And I tried different browsers too - with the same no effect.

They've made a big thing of the 'one device' this year, so i'm wondering if they only allowed one person in from from any IP address (my missus got the fresh page OK), and this has helped create the idea that phones were more successful (if, that is, phones each get own unique IP address from their provider - I'm not sure if they do, or if they go thru a gateway instead).

[Jackal1]

19 hours ago, Pinhead said:

Yep - even as local Admin you are not allowed to overwrite the sensitive hosts file due to UAC and the specific ACL's placed on that file. The easier way around it is to replace the "glastonbury.seetickets.com" component of the URL with the IP Address. Alternatively, if you really want to modify the host file, open it, save it somewhere else like the desktop and copy the file into the folder to overwrite the exising file wbich will prompt for Admin authorisatio  but will allow you to overwrite without having to fiddle with the ACL's of the existing file.

 

Sorry for being a bit dim on this sort of thing but are you saying its much easier to simply change the URL at the top of the screen to

http://109.231.214.235/event/glastonbury-2017-deposits/worthy-farm/1100000/

Thanks

[5co77ie]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, it didn't.

I made a post here in the last week or two, suggesting people closed the browser and started again, so when I was constantly getting a white screen that's what i tried, and it didn't make a difference. I also tried clearing the cache and restarting.

And I tried different browsers too - with the same no effect.

They've made a big thing of the 'one device' this year, so i'm wondering if they only allowed one person in from from any IP address (my missus got the fresh page OK), and this has helped create the idea that phones were more successful (if, that is, phones each get own unique IP address from their provider - I'm not sure if they do, or if they go thru a gateway instead).

I was trying on 2 machines on one link and didn't get a sniff, the wife was on a hot spotted ipad on H+ and got the booking screen - so I think the 'one device' warning could have been enforced somehow

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, it didn't.

I made a post here in the last week or two, suggesting people closed the browser and started again, so when I was constantly getting a white screen that's what i tried, and it didn't make a difference. I also tried clearing the cache and restarting.

And I tried different browsers too - with the same no effect.

They've made a big thing of the 'one device' this year, so i'm wondering if they only allowed one person in from from any IP address (my missus got the fresh page OK), and this has helped create the idea that phones were more successful (if, that is, phones each get own unique IP address from their provider - I'm not sure if they do, or if they go thru a gateway instead).

I had 6 people helping on different pcs at work. I was pinging the page from 7pm the previous evening when I got to work. I never lost the holding page while the other 5 in work just got white screen. Then about 10 past nine 2 of us got in to enter deatils. Both times out a few times. I just pressed back and entered cvv number. Had bagged the tickets by 9:15

[Nobody Interesting]

2 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

I was trying on 2 machines on one link and didn't get a sniff, the wife was on a hot spotted ipad on H+ and got the booking screen - so I think the 'one device' warning could have been enforced somehow

I had my desktop and laptop both in use and apart from once on each getting the holding page all we saw was the white screen. Just one window open on each.

 

Are we now thinking that I should only have used either or and not both?

[clarkete]

19 hours ago, Pinhead said:

The easier way around it is to replace the "glastonbury.seetickets.com" component of the URL with the IP Address. 

 

I just wanted to say, when others were doing the hosts hack in 2012 I was just editing the url instead and it didn't work in that circumstance, as I think it went straight onto another page attempting a connection to seetickets and therefore very slow.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Are we now thinking that I should only have used either or and not both?

there could be something in that - but it's impossible to know with any certainty.

It's a difficult trick to pull off well tho, to only allow one device from any IP, because of how some very large organisations - the NHS* for example - can share one IP address.

(* unless it's changed in the last 3 years or so).

Edited October 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[xploit]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, it didn't.

I made a post here in the last week or two, suggesting people closed the browser and started again, so when I was constantly getting a white screen that's what i tried, and it didn't make a difference. I also tried clearing the cache and restarting.

And I tried different browsers too - with the same no effect.

They've made a big thing of the 'one device' this year, so i'm wondering if they only allowed one person in from from any IP address (my missus got the fresh page OK), and this has helped create the idea that phones were more successful (if, that is, phones each get own unique IP address from their provider - I'm not sure if they do, or if they go thru a gateway instead).

5

Many providers deploy carrier grade NAT (Network Address Translation), so there could be thousands of users behind a single public IPv4 address. IPv6 addresses are different though.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, xploit said:

Many providers deploy carrier grade NAT (Network Address Translation), so there could be thousands of users behind a single public IPv4 address. IPv6 addresses are different though.

I thought a gateway with NAT would be how they'd do it.

I know naff-all about IP6 beyond the fact that it exists, but would it be possible for a phone provider to give each of the users sharing one IP4 address a unique IP6 address each, which See could then use to distinguish between them (while not the same happening from home routers and so making multiple devices look like one device)?

 

[somecoolusername]

1 hour ago, parsonjack said:

Personally I don't think was any crash although, as usual, the system struggled with demand and some people possibly were dealt a cookie which then generated the ' white screen' reported by some.  Not seen any confirmation but I'm pretty sure restarting the browser would have fixed this.  Other than this it seems to have gone much as in previous years.

As far as the Host file hack goes this didn't work for the coach sale, and I'm therefore very surprised it worked for the main sale.  Ensuring it doesn't work most likely involves See taking the DR system offline so that any requests directed to it (via the Host file edit) simply get dropped.  Under normal circumstances the DR system is usually available, so unless See had reason to leave it online (perhaps they anticipated an issue and needing to failure to DR...?) I'm guessing someone screwed up.  Directing all Customers to DR automatically would require a DNS change by See, which didn't happen throughout the sale as all lookup requests were returning only the usual 3 x 194.X.X.X IP's.  Pretty certain therefore that no-one got directed to DR unless they made the Host hack.

I was getting the white screen on my laptop. Restarted the browser several times and it didn't help. Got tickets in the end (using my phone), but yeah, restarting the browser didn't fix the problem. 

[majormajormajor]

I don't think any carriers burn public v4 IPs on each mobile user. Not in my experience anyway, but I've not worked with a mobile carrier in a few years. 

You can't tunnel various IPv6 users through one IPv4 address so that the third party can see the tunnelled IPv6 address. That's just PAT really, and not transparent. 

[Gasgull]

We sat with two iPads,a lap top and a kindle. By 9.30 we were starting to worry.

Decide to try something different and turned the wifi off on my phone.i don't get 3 or 4G where I live.

would you believe with in 5 I was through on GPRS only. Worried like hell that I would input the correct details in on such a small screen,but 6 tickets confirmed.

Unfortunately the lass that sorted our what's app group tried to change her photo a few days before and because it wasn't suitable it cancelled her registration,How can they do that?

no number of emails or phone calls later,they wouldn't budge.

so I will be asking for help for her and trying my hardest for her because she's distraught and we're all trying to hide our happiness. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

life isn't fair sometimes..

[Cooter]

3 minutes ago, majormajormajor said:

I don't think any carriers burn public v4 IPs on each mobile user. Not in my experience anyway, but I've not worked with a mobile carrier in a few years. 

You can't tunnel various IPv6 users through one IPv4 address so that the third party can see the tunnelled IPv6 address. That's just PAT really, and not transparent. 

 wtf! lol

[Aragorn]

Did anyone get in confirm payment and then go back and try and re-enter new registrations?

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

I had a laptop on wifi and three other laptops with 4g dongles from different networks, two phones on 4g with 02 and a tablet also on the wifi.

Got the white screen on the wired wifi and  on one of the laptops on a three mobile dongle  and on on the tablet.

Now I realised after about 30 minutes that my phone was on wifi and like a complete tool I hadn't switched it to 4G, I had the booking screen on this anyway, but it supports the theory of one IP because I didn't have anything on the other two devices on wifi. I had the holding screen on the other phone as well as a laptop with a Vodafone 4G dongle and another on an EE dongle. Me and the wife diligently refreshed everything as soon as the pages reloaded, we only saw the booking screen once and that was on the phone that was on wifi but I'd since switched to 4G. I should have tickets but for a monumental bit of bad luck, I got through to submitting payment and it told me another of our group had already bought a ticket, which would've happened at the split second before I submitted my booking, by the time I went back and removed him, because of the attempt against our reg numbers I couldn't resubmit for 10 minutes - sold out.

So I in theory I had 5 separate 4G connections, and one wifi across 7 devices, had holding pages on 4 of them and didn't get anything for 40 minutes. 

I don't think I could've done anymore or prepared any better and that fact that I had that mega set up and still didn't get tickets shows how much that despite all the theories, if all comes down to a massive slice of luck and if it's not meant to be it's not meant to be. We also had 4 other people in the group trying, so in total we probably had about 12+ devices and one booking page in 50 minutes.

[parsonjack]

1 hour ago, Jackal1 said:

Sorry for being a bit dim on this sort of thing but are you saying its much easier to simply change the URL at the top of the screen to

http://109.231.214.235/event/glastonbury-2017-deposits/worthy-farm/1100000/

Thanks

Very likely this won't work as, and my knowledge is a little hazy on this, the load-balancers will be configured to use Layer 4 rules and will inspect the URL to be able to then esolve the FQDN against internal, rather than public, DNS.  An IP address will therefore not be recognised.

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, majormajormajor said:

I don't think any carriers burn public v4 IPs on each mobile user. Not in my experience anyway, but I've not worked with a mobile carrier in a few years. 

 

From my experience sitting here and having to occasionally ban IP addresses, it used to be the case that banning a mobile IP blocked loads of people but that doesn't seem to happen now - or if it does, no one is telling me about it.

So I reckon they're using many more IP addies than they were, even if many users still share an address.... tho that would make sense I guess, just by the rise in smartphones.

 

Quote

You can't tunnel various IPv6 users through one IPv4 address so that the third party can see the tunnelled IPv6 address. That's just PAT really, and not transparent. 

Thanks.

Edited October 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[st dan]

I do wonder what it would be like if they upped the maximum number of tickets to say .. 20 for example. 

Initially the demand would be the same as everybody would be trying, but once groups realised they have been successful they would start to drop off and free up some traffic on the holding pages.  

The method now has it that groups of 20 have to get through 4 separate times to get everybody a ticket. 

Graned this would make the tickets sell out faster, but would be interesting to see the effects and if it let more people at least get through to the booking page.  

 

[parsonjack]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

They've made a big thing of the 'one device' this year, so i'm wondering if they only allowed one person in from from any IP address

It's looking increasingly likely I have to say.  Surely though See would know that severely limits the chances of several genuine customers trying from behind a single broadband router at home?  They can't possibly expect people to adhere to a one household, one router, one device policy can they?

[Pinhead]

2 hours ago, Jackal1 said:

Sorry for being a bit dim on this sort of thing but are you saying its much easier to simply change the URL at the top of the screen to

http://109.231.214.235/event/glastonbury-2017-deposits/worthy-farm/1100000/

Thanks

Yep - thats exactly it. All browsers are designed to recognise an IP Address.

[parsonjack]

15 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Yep - thats exactly it. All browsers are designed to recognise an IP Address.

The browser maybe....but if the load-balancer is doing URL inspection it won't work.  Just tried 194.168.202.218.....no joy.

Edited October 10, 2016 by parsonjack
Error

[clarkete]

51 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Yep - thats exactly it. All browsers are designed to recognise an IP Address.

Although as I wrote above it didn't work in my case back in 2012, as it only redirected that initial connection, subsequent connections from the page just went as before into the wilderness.

@parsonjack describes why it's only part of the picture above.

[phillyfaddle]

On 09/10/2016 at 2:18 PM, Curlygirl said:

Me too! Due to arrive 11am, arrived and pitched by 11pm!! I won't make the efests meet this year either, coach doesn't leave Lincoln til 2pm!! 

Oh no! That's a shame :-( Maybe try and grab a cider on the Thurs xx