Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[Ralph Seichter]

* t...@riseup.net:

> I just wanted to let you know that RIPE has announced funding for The
> Tor Project to improve IPv6 support on relays.

That's great news, congratulations.

My Tor nodes already use IPv6, so if you need help with testing updated
Tor versions, please let me know.

-Ralph
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[NOC]

Great,

than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.

P.S. whitelist me so it doesn't take days till my emails appear on the 
mailing list.


Thank you

On 11.12.2019 03:20, teor wrote:

Dear relay operators,

I just wanted to let you know that RIPE has announced funding for The
Tor Project to improve IPv6 support on relays. (RIPE is the European
internet infrastructure organisation.)

https://www.ripe.net/support/cpf/funding-recipients-2019

We'll have more details early in 2020, when we've worked out an
implementation plan and a start time.

Thanks for your patience with our current IPv6 support. And thanks
to all those volunteer coders who have worked hard to get us this far.

T

--
teor
--


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[Logforme]

On 2019-12-12 17:49:22, "NOC"  wrote:

than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.


I would be sad to no longer be able to contribute to the Tor network.
My ISP, Telenor Sweden, does not provide IPv6 and have no (public) 
roadmap for supporting IPv6.
I can't switch ISP since they provide the fiber connection for the 
apartment building.___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[teor]

Hi,

> On 13 Dec 2019, at 08:45, Logforme  wrote:
> 
>> On 2019-12-12 17:49:22, "NOC"  wrote:
>> than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.
>> 
> I would be sad to no longer be able to contribute to the Tor network.
> My ISP, Telenor Sweden, does not provide IPv6 and have no (public) roadmap 
> for supporting IPv6.
> I can't switch ISP since they provide the fiber connection for the apartment 
> building.

We won't be disabling IPv4 on relays any time soon.

The RIPE grant covers IPv6 address autodetection and self-testing.
If the feature is reliable enough, we may turn on IPv6 on dual-stack relays
by default. (When autodetection and self-testing both pass.)

We don't have any plans to disable IPv4 on relays. We'd need most relays
to be dual-stack first. (Or we'd need research about privacy in non-clique
networks.) And we'd need to write code that allows relays to turn off IPv4.

When that's all deployed, we would have to make an engineering decision
about the capacity of current IPv4-only relays, and the potential capacity
of IPv6-only relays.

One possible transition strategy is to allow IPv6-only bridges and exits.
But to do that, we need more dual-stack guards and middles. That's why
we are improving support for dual-stack relays with this funding.

T

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[Ralph Seichter]

* NOC:

> than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.

Let's not. Availabiliy of IPv6 varies with country/territory/ISP. While
I personally know people who simply don't want to use IPv6 (and I keep
prodding them for it), there are others who simply don't have the option.

-Ralph
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[grarpamp]

On 12/12/19, Logforme  wrote:
> My ISP ... does not provide ... and has no roadmap
> I can't switch ISP since they provide the fiber connection for the
> apartment building.

Seems you should be building out your own
P2P fiber mesh guerrilla network house-to-house
owner-to-owner, each node independantly peering
up with others... don't rent the internet monthly...
be the internet.

Take less than 2 years of ISP fee, invest upfront
into independant P2P network node, easily
gets 10+ years P2P operations in return.

Did you know your central ISP spies on you,
allows other centrals to spy on you, gives
all your data away to big centrals.

Distributed private P2P network is much harder to
do that, especially when every link is independantly
privately owned and fulltime link encrypted 1 or 10 GigE,
and everyone is running overlays within.

Go do it.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[grarpamp]

> than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.

Someone may have mentioned already...

Given many places relays do and could run are
still IPv4 only, that would probably impact diversity
quite a bit regarding AS, regions, jurisdiction, ISPs,
datacenter vs network edge type of operators, etc.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[Jonathan Sélea]

I am unable to see why this is a good idea actually.
As someone said already, I too would be unable to provide bridges and
relays thanks to my ISP (Telia) does not provide an IPv6.
But removing IPv4 only nodes from the network - you are basically
removing a large chunk of relays from the network without any real reason.


On 12/12/2019 5:49 PM, NOC wrote:
>
> Great,
>
> than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.
>
> P.S. whitelist me so it doesn't take days till my emails appear on the
> mailing list.
>
> Thank you
>
> On 11.12.2019 03:20, teor wrote:
>> Dear relay operators,
>>
>> I just wanted to let you know that RIPE has announced funding for The
>> Tor Project to improve IPv6 support on relays. (RIPE is the European
>> internet infrastructure organisation.)
>>
>> https://www.ripe.net/support/cpf/funding-recipients-2019
>>
>> We'll have more details early in 2020, when we've worked out an
>> implementation plan and a start time.
>>
>> Thanks for your patience with our current IPv6 support. And thanks
>> to all those volunteer coders who have worked hard to get us this far.
>>
>> T
>>
>> --
>> teor
>> --
>>
>>
>> ___
>> tor-relays mailing list
>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
> ___
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[Paul Geurts]

hi Johathan,

this question was already addressed last week by Teor.
email on this mailing list doesn't always seem to arrive in a logical
sequence possible due to spam filters and so on.

gr. Paul
teor t...@riseup.net via
 lists.torproject.org
Fri, Dec 13, 8:26 AM (3 days ago)

We won't be disabling IPv4 on relays any time soon.

The RIPE grant covers IPv6 address autodetection and self-testing.
If the feature is reliable enough, we may turn on IPv6 on dual-stack relays
by default. (When autodetection and self-testing both pass.)

We don't have any plans to disable IPv4 on relays. We'd need most relays
to be dual-stack first. (Or we'd need research about privacy in non-clique
networks.) And we'd need to write code that allows relays to turn off IPv4.

When that's all deployed, we would have to make an engineering decision
about the capacity of current IPv4-only relays, and the potential capacity
of IPv6-only relays.

One possible transition strategy is to allow IPv6-only bridges and exits.
But to do that, we need more dual-stack guards and middles. That's why
we are improving support for dual-stack relays with this funding.

T

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Sélea  wrote:

> I am unable to see why this is a good idea actually.
> As someone said already, I too would be unable to provide bridges and
> relays thanks to my ISP (Telia) does not provide an IPv6.
> But removing IPv4 only nodes from the network - you are basically removing
> a large chunk of relays from the network without any real reason.
>
>
> On 12/12/2019 5:49 PM, NOC wrote:
>
> Great,
>
> than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.
>
> P.S. whitelist me so it doesn't take days till my emails appear on the
> mailing list.
>
> Thank you
> On 11.12.2019 03:20, teor wrote:
>
> Dear relay operators,
>
> I just wanted to let you know that RIPE has announced funding for The
> Tor Project to improve IPv6 support on relays. (RIPE is the European
> internet infrastructure organisation.)
> https://www.ripe.net/support/cpf/funding-recipients-2019
>
> We'll have more details early in 2020, when we've worked out an
> implementation plan and a start time.
>
> Thanks for your patience with our current IPv6 support. And thanks
> to all those volunteer coders who have worked hard to get us this far.
>
> T
>
> --
> teor
> --
>
>
>
> ___
> tor-relays mailing 
> listtor-relays@lists.torproject.orghttps://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
>
> ___
> tor-relays mailing 
> listtor-relays@lists.torproject.orghttps://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
> ___
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[NOC]

I see a great benefit here, you could default to IPv6 for everything and 
enable IPv4 only as fallback that would allow to run Relays behind 
carrier grade NAT. I can get here 10 GBit/s symmetric but because the 
ISP did not get it's IP space 30 years ago (like some other ISPs which 
see no need for IPv6) it does have much more customers than IPv4 
addresses, so running a Relay is not possible. And this trend will not 
shift back, you will see more and more ISPs which won't offer a public 
IPv4 address, simply because they can't get more IPv4 space. You see 
that even on the VServer market today where you can get very cheap 
Servers with a /64 but every IPv4 costs extra.


So loosing some relays which really can't enable IPv6 is for me worth 
the trade off for many high speed relays which could finally join the 
network.


On 16.12.2019 12:25, Jonathan Sélea wrote:


I am unable to see why this is a good idea actually.
As someone said already, I too would be unable to provide bridges and 
relays thanks to my ISP (Telia) does not provide an IPv6.
But removing IPv4 only nodes from the network - you are basically 
removing a large chunk of relays from the network without any real reason.



On 12/12/2019 5:49 PM, NOC wrote:


Great,

than lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally.

P.S. whitelist me so it doesn't take days till my emails appear on 
the mailing list.


Thank you

On 11.12.2019 03:20, teor wrote:

Dear relay operators,

I just wanted to let you know that RIPE has announced funding for The
Tor Project to improve IPv6 support on relays. (RIPE is the European
internet infrastructure organisation.)

https://www.ripe.net/support/cpf/funding-recipients-2019

We'll have more details early in 2020, when we've worked out an
implementation plan and a start time.

Thanks for your patience with our current IPv6 support. And thanks
to all those volunteer coders who have worked hard to get us this far.

T

--
teor
--


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[Ralph Seichter]

* NOC:

> I see a great benefit here, you could default to IPv6 for everything
> and enable IPv4 only as fallback [...]

Preferring IPv6 over IPv4 is not even remotely the same as your original
call to "lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally", as
you wrote in message <08fee42f-f45d-a8c4-d4e6-c83c05b4f...@afo-tm.org>.

Dropping support for IPv4 nodes would be counterproductive and is not
going to happen in the forseeable future, as was clarified here before
by teor.

-Ralph
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[NOC]

On 16.12.2019 20:37, Ralph Seichter wrote:

* NOC:


I see a great benefit here, you could default to IPv6 for everything
and enable IPv4 only as fallback [...]

Preferring IPv6 over IPv4 is not even remotely the same as your original
call to "lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally", as
you wrote in message <08fee42f-f45d-a8c4-d4e6-c83c05b4f...@afo-tm.org>.


Read the full sentence, dropping all IPv4 only relays is unavoidable 
because they can't reach relays behind CG-NAT, preferring IPv6 over IPv4 
is only a handy side effect of this.


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[teor]

Hi,

> On 18 Dec 2019, at 02:17, NOC  wrote:
> 
> On 16.12.2019 20:37, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>> * NOC:
>> 
>>> I see a great benefit here, you could default to IPv6 for everything
>>> and enable IPv4 only as fallback [...]
>> Preferring IPv6 over IPv4 is not even remotely the same as your original
>> call to "lets drop all IPv4 only relays from consensus 2020 finally", as
>> you wrote in message <08fee42f-f45d-a8c4-d4e6-c83c05b4f...@afo-tm.org>.
> 
> Read the full sentence, dropping all IPv4 only relays is unavoidable because 
> they can't reach relays behind CG-NAT, preferring IPv6 over IPv4 is only a 
> handy side effect of this.

There hasn't been any new information in this thread for some time,
and it appears to be escalating, so I've asked the moderators to consider
closing it.

I've already shared some details of the grant here:

> On 13 Dec 2019, at 17:26, teor  wrote:
> 
> The RIPE grant covers IPv6 address autodetection and self-testing.
> If the feature is reliable enough, we may turn on IPv6 on dual-stack relays
> by default. (When autodetection and self-testing both pass.)
> 
> We don't have any plans to disable IPv4 on relays.


We'll get back to you next year when we have a timeline, and some more
specific information.

T


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[ILikeTor]

Hi,

I was wondering how you will implement IPv6-only relays. What limits
will you set on how many relays can be per /(something)? Will you allow
only two relays per /64, for example? Do you have any plans for that
already?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[NOC]

On 21.12.2019 21:28, ILikeTor wrote:

[..]
only two relays per /64, for example? Do you have any plans for that
already?[..]
That is already a bad practice for IPv4 and is impossible to do for 
IPv6. There are server providers which give you a single IPv6 address 
(/128) and there are some which give you /48. And because some give 
Additional IP space like candy this limit is dead with IPv6. And I would 
be very happy to have this restriction to be removed for IPv4 too 
because it makes no sense till there is proper multi threading, it sucks 
to waste IP space just because of this nonsense.

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Improving Relay IPv6 - RIPE Grant

[teor]

Hi,

Sorry I missed these emails. I was on leave around Christmas, and then I
was focused on the Relay IPv6 grant when I got back.

> On 22 Dec 2019, at 06:28, ILikeTor  wrote:
> 
> I was wondering how you will implement IPv6-only relays.

IPv6-only relays are out of scope for this sponsor.

We can't add IPv6-only relays, until we have more dual-stack relays.
(Or until researchers tell us how to get good user anonymity in
non-clique networks.)

So this sponsor is focused on adding more dual-stack relays.

> What limits
> will you set on how many relays can be per /(something)? Will you allow
> only two relays per /64, for example? Do you have any plans for that
> already?

We have a draft proposal:
  * AuthDirMaxServersPerIPv6Site counts relays in a /64
  * We will analyse the current number of relays in each /64 on the tor
network, to choose a default value
  * We expect the default to be between 4 and 50

https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/312-relay-auto-ipv6-addr.txt#n1125

This is an optional change, so we might not do it as part of this
sponsored work. (The sponsored work goes for the next 6 months.)

> On 22 Dec 2019, at 07:26, NOC  wrote:
> 
> On 21.12.2019 21:28, ILikeTor wrote:
>> [..]
>> only two relays per /64, for example? Do you have any plans for that
>> already?[..]
> That is already a bad practice for IPv4 and is impossible to do for IPv6. 
> There are server providers which give you a single IPv6 address (/128) and 
> there are some which give you /48. And because some give Additional IP space 
> like candy this limit is dead with IPv6. And I would be very happy to have 
> this restriction to be removed for IPv4 too because it makes no sense till 
> there is proper multi threading, it sucks to waste IP space just because of 
> this nonsense.

I would like better multithreading in Tor. We have designs, but we
need more funding (or volunteers) to do projects like this.

One of the tricky parts of multithreading is making all of tor's
code more independent. That's hard work!

I would also like to have a better way to resist sybil attacks than
using IP addresses. We need help from researchers to come up with
better designs.

You can ask the new network health team if you'd like to know more about
on resisting bad relays on the network:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkHealthTeam

We also might need a design where new relays go in a separate document,
until they have been checked for bandwidth (and any other automatic
checks we can do).

T






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays