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 -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:03 PM To: nanog@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:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:59 AM To: nanog@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:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:14 PM To: nanog@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:m...@internode.com.au] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 7:08 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: nanog@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
