21

There are several well known IPv4 addresses on the Internet that people widely use for testing their internet connectivity - 4.2.2.2, 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4, 1.1.1.1, etc. But what about IPv6? Does anybody know any easy to remember publicly pingable IPv6 addresses?

dtoux
  • 1,754
  • 3
  • 21
  • 38
  • 2
    Whoever put this question on hold probably missing the point. There is no more then handful addresses in question in the existence and it would be highly beneficial to identify some of them in one place. So far only 2600:: fits the criteria but ideally we need at least 3. This question is variation of this one http://stackoverflow.com/questions/757324/whats-the-easiest-to-remember-publicly-pingable-ip-address?rq=1 but in relation to IPv6. – dtoux Jul 11 '14 at 16:26
  • If you want another one: The first address of my own block is also pingable, but it's not as easy to remember: `2a00:8640::` – Sander Steffann Jul 11 '14 at 21:09

4 Answers4

27

I think Sprint has one of the shortest:

$ ping6 2600::
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2a00:8640:1::357b:4afd:7201:61cd --> 2600::
16 bytes from 2600::, icmp_seq=0 hlim=47 time=136.297 ms
16 bytes from 2600::, icmp_seq=1 hlim=47 time=134.229 ms
16 bytes from 2600::, icmp_seq=2 hlim=47 time=134.438 ms
16 bytes from 2600::, icmp_seq=3 hlim=47 time=135.200 ms
16 bytes from 2600::, icmp_seq=4 hlim=47 time=133.569 ms
Sander Steffann
  • 9,509
  • 35
  • 40
  • 1
    This address is pingable but it doesn't seem very reliable. I will definitely use it for manual testing but probably not for link monitoring. – dtoux Jul 12 '14 at 04:23
  • 7
    Are you sure it's not reliable? It is Sprint's main website, so I would be surprised if it is very unreliable. PS: 2600::1 and 2600::2 are two public DNS resolvers and also pingable. – Sander Steffann Jul 12 '14 at 05:40
  • 5
    I added it to link monitoring list on my firewall along with two Google DNSes and ping failed 3 times within ~30 hours. The fact that it is web site may explain it. If they are getting high volume of traffic some low priority packets may just be dropped. – dtoux Jul 13 '14 at 16:40
  • Yes, that makes sense. The Google public DNS servers are also very distributed. If one goes down another will answer. – Sander Steffann Jul 13 '14 at 18:03
4

How about the v6 equivalent of 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4. They are pretty easy.

2001:4860:4860::8888 
2001:4860:4860::8844
zx485
  • 28,498
  • 28
  • 50
  • 59
Georg
  • 41
  • 1
2

I also discovered these two from OpenDNS:

$ ping6 2620:0:ccd::2
PING 2620:0:ccd::2(2620:0:ccd::2) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2620:0:ccd::2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=13.7 ms
64 bytes from 2620:0:ccd::2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=13.8 ms
64 bytes from 2620:0:ccd::2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=13.4 ms
...

and

$ ping6 2620:0:ccc::2
PING 2620:0:ccc::2(2620:0:ccc::2) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2620:0:ccc::2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=13.1 ms
64 bytes from 2620:0:ccc::2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=13.7 ms
64 bytes from 2620:0:ccc::2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=13.8 ms
...

Not super easy to remember but no too bad either.

dtoux
  • 1,754
  • 3
  • 21
  • 38
1

Searching low end box we found: 2602:ffea:a::dead:beef

You may ask your ISP if they can arrange something like '2602:ffea:a::[a-f]:[a-f]'

chello
  • 78
  • 1
  • 5