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 <frnk...@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: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 > > >