RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
HTTP both www.qwest.com and www.centurylink.com have been in and out since December 27. Sometimes it responds in less than 10 seconds, other times it connects and there's no TCP response for minutes. This was tested from two different networks. If anyone from CenturyLink is lurking, could you please notify your NOC or IT department? Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:43 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days and IPv6 access to www.centurylink.com were restored around 11:30 am U.S. Central. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:59 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days Well, sometime yesterday www.centurylink.com removed it record(s). www.qwest.com still has them. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 1:47 PM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days Good news: access to the v6 version of www.qwest.com came up at 12:30 pm today -- it redirects to www.centurylink.com, but at least it's working. Only www.savvis.com remains in my list of service provider websites that have non-working IPv6. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:35 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days The IPv6 version of www.qwest.com has been down for 10 days. Wget shows a 301 to www.centurylink.com, but that also fails. Emails to the nocs at both companies have gone unanswered. Unless HE is deployed in a web browser, this behavior leads to a bad end-user experience. If anyone can prod either of these two companies that would be much appreciated. Frank nagios:/home/fbulk# wget -6 www.qwest.com --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.qwest.com/ Resolving www.qwest.com... 2001:428:b21:1::20 Connecting to www.qwest.com|2001:428:b21:1::20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.centurylink.com/ [following] --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.centurylink.com/ Resolving www.centurylink.com... 2001:428:b21:1::22 Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:02-- (try: 2) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:25-- (try: 3) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:49-- (try: 4) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. Etc...
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
and IPv6 access to www.centurylink.com were restored around 11:30 am U.S. Central. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:59 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days Well, sometime yesterday www.centurylink.com removed it record(s). www.qwest.com still has them. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 1:47 PM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days Good news: access to the v6 version of www.qwest.com came up at 12:30 pm today -- it redirects to www.centurylink.com, but at least it's working. Only www.savvis.com remains in my list of service provider websites that have non-working IPv6. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:35 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days The IPv6 version of www.qwest.com has been down for 10 days. Wget shows a 301 to www.centurylink.com, but that also fails. Emails to the nocs at both companies have gone unanswered. Unless HE is deployed in a web browser, this behavior leads to a bad end-user experience. If anyone can prod either of these two companies that would be much appreciated. Frank nagios:/home/fbulk# wget -6 www.qwest.com --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.qwest.com/ Resolving www.qwest.com... 2001:428:b21:1::20 Connecting to www.qwest.com|2001:428:b21:1::20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.centurylink.com/ [following] --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.centurylink.com/ Resolving www.centurylink.com... 2001:428:b21:1::22 Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:02-- (try: 2) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:25-- (try: 3) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:49-- (try: 4) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. Etc...
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
Well, sometime yesterday www.centurylink.com removed it record(s). www.qwest.com still has them. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 1:47 PM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days Good news: access to the v6 version of www.qwest.com came up at 12:30 pm today -- it redirects to www.centurylink.com, but at least it's working. Only www.savvis.com remains in my list of service provider websites that have non-working IPv6. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:35 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days The IPv6 version of www.qwest.com has been down for 10 days. Wget shows a 301 to www.centurylink.com, but that also fails. Emails to the nocs at both companies have gone unanswered. Unless HE is deployed in a web browser, this behavior leads to a bad end-user experience. If anyone can prod either of these two companies that would be much appreciated. Frank nagios:/home/fbulk# wget -6 www.qwest.com --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.qwest.com/ Resolving www.qwest.com... 2001:428:b21:1::20 Connecting to www.qwest.com|2001:428:b21:1::20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.centurylink.com/ [following] --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.centurylink.com/ Resolving www.centurylink.com... 2001:428:b21:1::22 Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:02-- (try: 2) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:25-- (try: 3) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:49-- (try: 4) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. Etc...
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
Good news: access to the v6 version of www.qwest.com came up at 12:30 pm today -- it redirects to www.centurylink.com, but at least it's working. Only www.savvis.com remains in my list of service provider websites that have non-working IPv6. Frank -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:35 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days The IPv6 version of www.qwest.com has been down for 10 days. Wget shows a 301 to www.centurylink.com, but that also fails. Emails to the nocs at both companies have gone unanswered. Unless HE is deployed in a web browser, this behavior leads to a bad end-user experience. If anyone can prod either of these two companies that would be much appreciated. Frank nagios:/home/fbulk# wget -6 www.qwest.com --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.qwest.com/ Resolving www.qwest.com... 2001:428:b21:1::20 Connecting to www.qwest.com|2001:428:b21:1::20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.centurylink.com/ [following] --2011-08-18 00:32:40-- http://www.centurylink.com/ Resolving www.centurylink.com... 2001:428:b21:1::22 Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:02-- (try: 2) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:25-- (try: 3) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. --2011-08-18 00:33:49-- (try: 4) http://www.centurylink.com/ Connecting to www.centurylink.com|2001:428:b21:1::22|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. Etc...
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
...and the 's are back! And port 80 responds. 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 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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
via gogo6 tunnel box (http://gogo6.com/) from my UK location ( not tested other tunnels nor native) $ telnet -6 www.savvis.com 80 Trying 2001:460:100:1000::37... Connected to www.savvis.net. $ ping6 www.savvis.com PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:5c0:1110:8000:217:f2ff:fee6:ab79 --> 2001:460:100:1000::37 16 bytes from 2001:460xx, icmp_seq=0 hlim=243 time=149.971 ms Christian On 6 Sep 2011, at 06:25, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Jima wrote: > >> 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. > > $ telnet -6 www.savvis.com 80 > Trying 2001:460:100:1000::37... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused > > I checked, it's a TCP RST packet, not ICMP unreachable. This is from native > IPv6. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Jima wrote: 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. $ telnet -6 www.savvis.com 80 Trying 2001:460:100:1000::37... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused I checked, it's a TCP RST packet, not ICMP unreachable. This is from native IPv6. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
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:ma...@isc.org] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 8:55 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days In message<007f01cc6c37$0f4ac060$2de04120$@iname.com>, "Frank Bulk" writes: A Chrome plugin alerted me to the fact that savvis.com has an 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: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 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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
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:ma...@isc.org] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 8:55 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days In message <007f01cc6c37$0f4ac060$2de04120$@iname.com>, "Frank Bulk" writes: > A Chrome plugin alerted me to the fact that savvis.com has an 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: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 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 > records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. > > > > +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you > publish 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
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
In message <007f01cc6c37$0f4ac060$2de04120$@iname.com>, "Frank Bulk" writes: > A Chrome plugin alerted me to the fact that savvis.com has an 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: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 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 > records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. > > > > +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you > publish 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 > > > > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
A Chrome plugin alerted me to the fact that savvis.com has an 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 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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
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 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 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 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 > records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. > > > > +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you > publish 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 > > >
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 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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
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 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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
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 records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] >> Sent: 18 August 2011 06:36 >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been >> down for 10 days >> >> The IPv6 version of www.qwest.com has been down for 10 days. Wget >> shows a >> 301 to www.centurylink.com, but that also fails. Emails to the nocs at >> both >> companies have gone unanswered. Unless HE is deployed in a web >> browser, >> this behavior leads to a bad end-user experience. >> >> If anyone can prod either of these two companies that would be much >> appreciated. >> >> Frank > > It seems that any IPv6 efforts by organisations are best effort at most with > of course some notable exceptions who seem to offer a really very good > service (HE for example). It's starting to get to a point now, I think, that > some end users have IPv6 (Andrews and Arnold have offered IPv6 for years) and > issues such as these are just going to start to give IPv6 a bad name in the > eyes of consumers. > > It'd really suck for end users to start actively avoiding IPv6 connectivity > because it keeps breaking and for organisations that have active records > to break peoples connectivity to their resources. > > +1 -- I'm all for publishing records as everyone knows, but, if you publish 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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
Thus spake Leigh Porter (leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com) on Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:47:19AM +: > > It seems that any IPv6 efforts by organisations are best effort at most with > of course some notable exceptions who seem to offer a really very good > service (HE for example). It's starting to get to a point now, I think, that > some end users have IPv6 (Andrews and Arnold have offered IPv6 for years) and > issues such as these are just going to start to give IPv6 a bad name in the > eyes of consumers. > > It'd really suck for end users to start actively avoiding IPv6 connectivity > because it keeps breaking and for organisations that have active records > to break peoples connectivity to their resources. This, as Frank points out is why getting Happy Eyeballs support into applications like web browsers is so important. I think modern versions of Chrome & Firefox do this. Safari does something similar, but arguably more naive. I don't know about IE. Dale
RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down for 10 days
> -Original Message- > From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] > Sent: 18 August 2011 06:36 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been > down for 10 days > > The IPv6 version of www.qwest.com has been down for 10 days. Wget > shows a > 301 to www.centurylink.com, but that also fails. Emails to the nocs at > both > companies have gone unanswered. Unless HE is deployed in a web > browser, > this behavior leads to a bad end-user experience. > > If anyone can prod either of these two companies that would be much > appreciated. > > Frank It seems that any IPv6 efforts by organisations are best effort at most with of course some notable exceptions who seem to offer a really very good service (HE for example). It's starting to get to a point now, I think, that some end users have IPv6 (Andrews and Arnold have offered IPv6 for years) and issues such as these are just going to start to give IPv6 a bad name in the eyes of consumers. It'd really suck for end users to start actively avoiding IPv6 connectivity because it keeps breaking and for organisations that have active records to break peoples connectivity to their resources. -- Leigh Porter __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
