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

PC paul4004 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 1 19:03:40 CDT 2011


The Qwest one died roughly around the time of their merger/migration to
Centurylink web sites.  I did bring up the issue with them as a customer,
and it seems the response was to disable publicly-facing IPV6 services (and
associated AAAA records) for the time being, as you observed.

Not that I agree with the "fix", but it is what it is.



On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list