On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:46:19 +0300
s7r wrote:
> I totally agree. But why would you want to advertise an IPv6 ORPort if
> your Tor daemon only truly has IPv4 socket? This is what I don't
> understand. Why would one want that? Just to look neat in the consensus?
It is supported to advertise an
Hi,
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 07:41, Charly Ghislain wrote:
>
> I feel there is an issue in case the operator advertises an unreachable ip6
> address in the config. This seems like a configuration error that should be
> spotted by a self-reachability mechanism that is yet to come, like for ipv4.
Thursday, April 18, 2019 2:41 PM
> *To:* tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> *Subject:* [tor-relays] ipv6 behaviour consensus
>
>
>
> Hi list,
>
>
>
> Last reply from s7r on jake Visser' issue included a link to an open issue
> waiting for a consensus on a mailing list:
>
] ipv6 behaviour consensus
Hi list,
Last reply from s7r on jake Visser' issue included a link to an open issue
waiting for a consensus on a mailing list:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/29570
Not sure if teor implied the dev mailing list or this one, but maybe gathering
feedback
Hello,
Charly Ghislain wrote:
> selfreplying as I hadn't read the whole ticket thread at the time of
> writing (still haven't, tbh).
>
> I think there are real reason to use natted traffic in this period of
> transition toward ip6 and that must be supported.
> My setup (ha proxy litening on both
selfreplying as I hadn't read the whole ticket thread at the time of
writing (still haven't, tbh).
I think there are real reason to use natted traffic in this period of
transition toward ip6 and that must be supported.
My setup (ha proxy litening on both interfaces, tor relay listening on ip4
Hi list,
Last reply from s7r on jake Visser' issue included a link to an open issue
waiting for a consensus on a mailing list:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/29570
Not sure if teor implied the dev mailing list or this one, but maybe
gathering feedback from operators is a good
