hmm interesting... Yes they update the trac ticket or not. Us Tor devs don't think of Tor as an extra layer but a necessary layer for certain threat models.
I don't know much about IPv6 but the core Tahoe-LAFS dev team can decide to be compatible with both IPv6 and IPv4 anytime they want to review and merge my foolscap Twisted endpoints branch which would allow the use arbitrary network transports (transports that have Twisted client and server endpoints). On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Lukas Pirl <tahoe-...@lukas-pirl.de> wrote: > On 02/25/2015 04:51 PM, David Stainton wrote: >> With regards to NAT... it seems that they decided a while back that >> this problem was outside the scope of what Tahoe-LAFS should solve... >> but maybe they are interested? I can tell you that there are various >> people such as myself who use Tahoe-LAFS with Tor and Tor hidden >> services... we therefore get NAT penetration for free. I don't know >> much about I2p but I think they may have NAT penetration as well. > > Thanks for the feedback, David! > > If you are right, then the Track should have some explicit markup for > this state. > > Instead of adding extra networking layers, I am curious about IPv6 to > overcome NAT limitations but I think being compatible and equally > functional with IPv4 is important as well. > > Best, > > Lukas _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
