Retiring Test-Ipv6.com

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Gratitude and role of test-ipv6.com

  • Widely praised as a go‑to tool for debugging IPv6 on home gear, ISPs, and production systems.
  • Used to convince ISPs and technicians that IPv6 was broken or misconfigured.
  • Many express thanks and nostalgia; some lament they’ll never “pass the test” because their ISP still lacks IPv6.

Operational and cost burdens of running the site

  • Even “simple” sites face constant exploit scans, DDoS attempts, and angry users blaming them for broken connectivity.
  • This creates ongoing maintenance, security, and emotional load, despite low direct costs.
  • Geolocation lookups can be a notable recurring expense; some suggest dropping that feature or using free databases/APIs.

State of IPv6 deployment (very uneven)

  • Some users report ubiquitous IPv6 at home, work, and on mobile (US cable, fiber, T‑Mobile, Japan, etc.).
  • Others have never seen a home ISP with IPv6, or lost it when switching to new fiber providers.
  • Several ISPs and municipal networks still offer IPv4‑only; some mobile and satellite services rely on IPv4 CGNAT.
  • Government censorship and “block everything” policies reportedly killed IPv6 in at least one country.

IPv6 reliability & ISP/router issues

  • Reports of broken IPv6 routing, packet loss, MTU problems, buggy CPE, and flaky tunnels cause people to disable IPv6 entirely.
  • Some consumer routers (e.g., certain versions of Mikrotik, OpenWrt) are called out for IPv6 bugs; others say they work fine.
  • Users note difficulty escalating IPv6 routing issues inside large ISPs.

Debate over IPv6 for new projects

  • One camp: in 2025, greenfield infrastructure that ignores IPv6 is “negligent”; dual‑stack or IPv6‑first should be standard.
  • Opposing camp: IPv6 adds complexity and failure modes for little visible benefit; shipping features and reliability trump protocol purity.
  • Some cite organizational, financial, and even cyber‑insurance constraints that explicitly discourage IPv6.

Perceived pros, cons, and complexity

  • Pros mentioned: no port forwarding, simpler addressing at scale, end‑to‑end connectivity, cheaper address space, easier P2P, email reputation benefits.
  • Cons: confusing multiple addresses per host, DNS/hostname clashes, intermittent failures, lack of vendor support, and user unfamiliarity.
  • Some argue IPv6 is conceptually simpler; others say making it a “separate network” from IPv4 was a strategic mistake.

Future of the site / replacements

  • Suggestions include handoff to another IPv6‑focused organization, sponsorship, or Cloudflare hosting (with mixed feelings about Cloudflare).
  • Alternatives mentioned: Google’s basic IPv6 test, CLI tools like netq, and the hope a third party will keep test‑ipv6.com alive.