Re: [tor-talk] IPv6 /48 for OnionCat

[Mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/28/2016 02:00 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> On 8/28/16, Mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is it possible to specify a different /48?
> 
> On the command line or config file, currently, in r570? No.
> Excluding tunnel setup it's in src/ocat_netdesc.h.
> Go ahead and add the -option if you want, seems useful.

I'm no coder, so at best, I'd get something to build ;)

> Make sure you check the rfc and document your prefix
> generation, some of the example scripts out there are
> also wrong, and I believe the current prefix is unreproducible.
> There's also a voluntary registry of sorts.

OK. As I understand it, all that matters is using a /48 that won't be
provisioned by ISPs. In case it hits the public Internet. Right?

What do you mean by "unreproducible"?

>> I understand that would break
>> routing from stock OnionCat. But that's actually the goal.
> 
> I think you'd end up with a "private" network via breakage,
> though it seems hardly a security feature without end
> to end keying / packet filtering. See also -U and -R.

Yes, I've discovered the importance of -U :) I restrict traffic by local
and remote OnionCat IPv6 addresses, both in ip6tables and for ip4ip6
tunnels. But honestly, it hadn't occurred to me to use the
HiddenServiceAuthorizeClient option. Thanks :)

> I could see ocat expanded to recognize a list of known
> prefixes where you'd handle each differently in the host
> stack (via interfaces, or even subinterface / vlan presentation)
> even though they're all backhauled over a -t tor.
> Today that would require running multiple onioncats
> with no way to multiplex the prefixes over a -s.

OK, so I get that -t is the SocksPort used for outbound connections. And
for inbound connections, I get that -l is the listening address and
port, and that -s is the virtual hidden service port.

So for now, each instance would have its own pair of -t and -l/-s. But
I'm having a hard time imagining what multiplexing would look like. And
anyway, isn't it better to split stuff across multiple SocksPorts?

> You probably know about this thread spanning months
> where people interested in onioncat...
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2016-April/010847.html

Yes :)

> Do wish the mailing list and all its archives would come back.
> 
> https://www.onioncat.org/
> https://www.cypherpunk.at/onioncat_trac/

Me too.

I've very intrigued by overlay networks. And I'm impressed with
OnionCat. It's simple, it's fast, and it's reliable. I've even managed a
LizardFS cluster on many VPS linked via OnionCat. All it took was
increasing timeouts 10x to accept 2000 ms rtt.

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk