Re: [tor-dev] RFC of proposal draft for "Migration to ed25519 HS identity keys and privacy-preserving directory documents"

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/19/13, Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:53 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> 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
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev