On 9/19/13, Nick Mathewson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:53 AM, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: >> I suggest a solution to transporting IPv6 within Tor be >> maintained/deployed concurrently with any change in >> current onion addressing and or transport mechanics. > > I have nothing against onioncat, but let's remember that the fact that > you can squeeze a Tor hidden service address into an IPv6 address is > completely accidental. > > If we want to keep that ability when hidden service addresses become > longer than 128 bits, the obvious solution would be to add some kind > of translation layer.
Of course... since we have hidden services, there's no reason we shouldn't provide an IPv6 layer for them. Onioncat proved the utility in that. Whether it's n-bits backed, onioncat fronted or some other new form doesn't really matter... so long as there's a working IPv6 layer with the same user facing interface/route semantic as onioncat provides. That's the necessary key to making it useful. _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
