IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days

Tue Sep 6 03:55:12 UTC 2011

  I'm with Frank on this one: ICMP yes, HTTP/HTTPS no, via native IPv6 
(multiple locations).  No, wait -- it shows as open from a couple 
tunnels (both HE & SixXS).  So it's not consistent.  Lovely.

  Closed from:
2607:ff50::/32 (native)
2607:fcd0::/32 (native)

  Open from:
2001:1938::/32 (SixXS tunnel)
2001:4978::/32 (SixXS tunnel)
2001:470::/32 (HE tunnel)

  That gives me a really bad feeling of what might be wrong, but I'll 
leave it to the professionals.

      Jima

On 2011-09-05 19:57, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Strange, not for me.
>
> nagios:/etc/nagios3# ping6 www.savvis.com
> PING www.savvis.com(2001:460:100:1000::37) 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 2001:460:100:1000::37: icmp_seq=1 ttl=239 time=55.5 ms
> 64 bytes from 2001:460:100:1000::37: icmp_seq=2 ttl=239 time=55.4 ms
> 64 bytes from 2001:460:100:1000::37: icmp_seq=3 ttl=239 time=55.6 ms
> 64 bytes from 2001:460:100:1000::37: icmp_seq=4 ttl=239 time=55.4 ms
> ^C
> --- www.savvis.com ping statistics ---
> 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2999ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 55.465/55.517/55.608/0.176 ms
> nagios:/etc/nagios3# wget -6 www.savvis.com
> --2011-09-05 20:57:08--  http://www.savvis.com/
> Resolving www.savvis.com... 2001:460:100:1000::37
> Connecting to www.savvis.com|2001:460:100:1000::37|:80... failed: Connection
> refused.
> nagios:/etc/nagios3#
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka at isc.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 8:55 PM
> To: frnkblk at iname.com
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down
> for 10 days
>
>
> In message<[email protected]>, "Frank Bulk" writes:
>> A Chrome plugin alerted me to the fact that savvis.com has an AAAA for
>> www.savvis.com.  Unfortunately access to that host over IPv6 is down, too.
>>
>> Frank
>
> The fault must be local to you.  Works fine from here.
>
> Mark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk at iname.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:03 PM
>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been
> down
>> for 10 days
>>
>> Charter.com has also remove the quad-A's for www.charter.com.  My
> monitoring
>> system alerted me this afternoon that it couldn't get to the v6 version of
>> their website.  Because of DNS caching, I don't know how many hours or
> days
>> ago it was removed.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk at iname.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:59 AM
>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been
> down
>> for 10 days
>>
>> I just noticed that the quad-A records for both those two hosts are now
>> gone.  DNS being what it is, I'm not sure when that happened, but our
>> monitoring system couldn't get the AAAA for www.qwest.com about half an
> hour
>> ago.
>>
>> Hopefully CenturyLink is actively working towards IPv6-enabling their
> sites
>> again.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk at iname.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:14 PM
>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been
> down
>> for 10 days
>>
>> FYI, the issue is not resolved and I've not heard from either of the
>> companies suggesting that they're working on it.
>>
>> Note their commitment to IPv6 in these releases:
>>
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/centurylink-joins-internet-community
>> -in-world-ipv6-day-123089908.html
>> http://news.centurylink.com/index.php?s=43&item=2129
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode.com.au]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 7:08 PM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been
> down
>> for 10 days
>>
>>
>> On 19/08/2011, at 4:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> It'd really suck for end users to start actively avoiding IPv6
> connectivity
>> because it keeps breaking and for organisations that have active AAAA
>> records to break peoples connectivity to their resources.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 -- I'm all for publishing AAAA records as everyone knows, but, if you
>> publish AAAA records for a consumer facing service, please support and
>> monitor that service with a similar level to what you do for your IPv4
>> versions of the service.
>>
>> The coming years are going to be difficult enough for end-users without
>> adding unnecessary anti-IPv6 sentiments to the mix.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> +1 to Owen's comment.
>>
>> I'd also add some more comments:
>>
>> A lot of eyeballs that have v6 right now are the people with a lot of
> clue.
>> Do you want these people, who'll often be buying or recommending your
>> services to rate your ability to deliver as a fail?  Our experience with
>> IPv6 consumer broadband has been that the early adopters are the people
> who,
>> well, goto IETF meetings, follow standards and ask the bloody hard
>> questions.
>>
>> Even given the Happy Eyeballs (Did Hurricane PAY for it to be abbrievated
> as
>> HE?? :-) ) most end users prefer IPv6 over IPv4.  Deeply this means there
> is
>> a tendency for v6 traffic to grow and be more important to connectivity
> than
>> you may imagine.  The tipping point for IPv6 traffic being dominant I
>> suspect is going to be a lower threshold of take up than people might
>> expect.   Consider this when thinking about the level of thought you give
> to
>> IPv6 infrastructure and PPS rates.
>>
>> MMC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>