On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:23:45AM -0400, grarpamp wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just got word, Enigmabox has published source and > > put up first documentation on http://wiki.enigmabox.net/ > > This is cjdns. Last I checked (and will again) I'm pretty sure they
Yes. If people are not familiar with cjdns, here's a good intro https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/doc/Whitepaper.md > were using an IPv6 address scheme that would conflict with > other projects using proper private space. So if say you wanted I've asked about this a while back among a few IPv6 people, and it does not seem to be a problem. The keys/addresses are randomly generated and are all in FC00::/8. > to run an interface for each project and run/access/route > them all at once, you can't. Yes, less than 128bits > (say a /48) is pretty weak... but when you can't interoperate [1] 120 bits is a lot of space. > that leaves something to be said for each project to develop an > address layer so you can. There certainly won't ever be more > than 2^48 projects or 2^80 users. > > The undernets are getting bigger and having more projects. > They might want to be thinking about interop beforehand. > Otherwise, even though the tech under the hood might > be different, to the user they will appear as bunch of balkanized > communities, and a real pain to use any of them in parallel. cjdns interoperates fine with dual-stack. The interesting part is L2 routing over own infrastructure, and eventual ASIC/FPGAfication of the router. > [1] Click on a link to service on any net from a page on any net > and let your host do the routing to get you there. Where any > net = i2p/tor/freenet/phantom/cjdns/anonet/gnunet/etc. > At least four of these do have some IPv6 route capability, > but I thnk only a couple work together reasonably well.
