[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Alex Le Heux on IPv6 proposals [alexlh@xxxxxxxx: Re: Links about IPv6 in Tor]
- To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Nick Mathewson" <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Alex Le Heux on IPv6 proposals [alexlh@xxxxxxxx: Re: Links about IPv6 in Tor]
- From: coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:00:37 -0700
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:00:44 -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:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=MCRy9LRFHC2ckCQxTX3eITx9eyQggoYH5s+XUQz3MIg=; b=JIaKM3qm15mmUVv4NlDQ9SXmlZ/HxtFZdtcr/iKm0sFEXNFhBxAWkzNkWplAKLQ68B xRkSo0yQTF0zG1x1/Ro70n7tno2Kn85ZTsV4wbxLbPDqZlXmnVJr9SXNySmjEdC0MKyO UO4HHsRHXX4cASSsDzyMGV/EpTKi0+p1ERQyI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=QKBlqhZYNY3NPU/AX9xXId7aYwwgbeWy1SqtJYF1SiSZHpq4pGNL+SZloiGVq5lL5e P0kWKJA6PaF5riByI3BthCpjM6S2CwN7sq1DoZSltt8MlVpfxtzvfaAd0zB9Hs13UyDn YXBGj601/3k903tFwW2ffVWjvGblzeC7vkGQU=
- In-reply-to: <20080724152846.GJ28039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <20080724152846.GJ28039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Forwarded message from Alex Le Heux <alexlh@xxxxxxxx> -----
> ...
> Final remark
>
> I believe Tor makes sure it picks the nodes from different /16s. In
> IPv6 you could employ a similar strategy...
>
> The disadvantage of picking /32 is that all direct end-user
> assignments will then be lumped together, while all these assignments
> to seperate organistions would come from a handfull of /32s.
> The disadvantage of picking /48 is that nearly all "normal" end-users
> will be in ISP aggregated space, so you might end up with the entire
> path consisting of nodes living in a single ISP.
this is a situation where classification by AS number would make more
sense. given the widely varying prefixes used, as Alex points out
above, any prefix selection is going to be less effective than
desired, and probably vary significantly as IPv6 deployment increases
(with new players possibly using longer or shorter prefix for customer
assignment, etc).
a rough look here: http://ipv6.nlsde.buaa.edu.cn/ipv6/210.25.133.26/
seems to support an AS level classification as best suited.