> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Iain Learmonth <irl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi, > > On 23/10/18 01:27, grarpamp wrote: > <deletion> >> Yes, one cannot rationally overload all 128 bits for that without colliding >> upon allocated IPv6 space that may appear in one's host stack. >> However the 1:1 key network can be larger than 80 bit. One could >> easily play with up to say 125 bits by squatting on entirely >> unallocated space. (Unlike the clear mistake CJDNS made by >> squatting on space already allocated for a specific and conflicting >> real world in stack purpose.) Obviously the common library widths >> of 96 and 112 could be keyed. And request could be made for a >> formal allocation if compatibility and compliance was felt needed >> by some mental gymnastics. >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml > > One thing I have discussed with the IETF Internet Architecture Board > (IAB) in the past is some sort of scheme for IPv6 addressing for overlay > networks. The result of that discussion was basically get an allocation > from your RIR. You can get a /32 giving you 96 bits to play with. If you > want you can announce it via BGP and provide gateways to the Internet > but it's not required. This gives you collision-free space. > > The direct mapping between the IP address and an Onion service though is > the problem. How do you discover the Onion service public key when you > only have 96-bits of data? This would be a cool area to research and development on. I think Tor announcing it’s address space and the correlation of users would be a cool area to research. > >> People would like IPv6 and UDP (even raw IP) transport because >> their host stacks support it, the internet is moving to it, >> many applications simply don't speak .onion or torify poorly, >> and it's an interesting capability to plug into other things. > > I think I see it more as a transition-mechanism than an end goal. If I > had the time, it's 50/50 right now whether I would work on v3 OnionCat > or some Onion-native version of a protocol (via some kind of AF_ONION > sockets). An interesting fact I learnt recently is that FTP predates TCP > and was actually "ported" after its original development. > >> Whether in Tor or some other existing or new network, >> try getting together to develop it, or white papering why it >> cannot be done in any network ever. Whichever outcome, >> any good research there would be a useful addition >> to the set other projects might reference in developing >> their own work. > > +1 would encourage anyone that wanted to do research in this area. > I gladly volunteer my time, research, hardware, and network for research in this area. Thanks, Conrad > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- 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