[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 Exit [was: Status of Tor proposals ...]
- To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Nick Mathewson" <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: IPv6 Exit [was: Status of Tor proposals ...]
- From: coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:54:39 -0700
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:54:44 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=6JajuF6dbm9ActcLVjI8Jqt2c1MlOVn3WhRjHKm24Us=; b=IMQdZ8w2cvbiqRjmTwc7UQG1udGwX9FjN9bVV5or07fkORCPR0lxzGNCCu8S/mFQ8pLMk4QgLfFlMS0BF8Z8b3UomVdglfTwVZwJBNlcNGEqKpF0YBQboAjpgm/KyrjV96O0GGisli++xs29hDSyoGgoSykxy47+pX9fvK5UhDA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=KbyJZs4WxUv6Cy7m4MQHZouV+f3JgOdyW0IhqOx44pEcaFsFH9lLbcgzf8c1ZHKvcQakmWXpjvmA4RXVxhKxsJESQGeTb2J5tT+2g3C3UnX71zAvaj6I3YJZUeG6DBCC5qcRD6mpIME5otSFhcju5PfcyYjQxzSWW0EFdHYgrbQ=
- Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> 117 IPv6 exits
>
> This is a good start but could use some revision. See earlier
> thread. I want to merge in IPv6 support in 0.2.1.x, including
> support for both entries and exits, so a revision of this
> proposal is important. Marking as NEEDS-REVISION.
i'm probably just overlooking an obvious discussion, but i don't see a
thread related to IPv6 entry support and/or the previous thread
referenced here.
does the "entry" support imply full IPv6 support? (or is "entry"
simply the requisite client support for utilizing IPv6 exit
capability?)
> Other problems are:
> - The process doesn't seem to look far enough future. We seem
> to be planning for the next release, but not for the next two or
> three years.
the UDP/DTLS re-architecture could fit the 3 year time frame ... :P
(a half joke; this is incredibly complicated, and the easy approaches
like TCP over UDP will suck in addition to compromising anonymity...
of course, the challenge is half the fun, right?)