On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:16:40 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think if a client is just using it for bootstrap, any extra latency shouldn't be an issue. > But IPv6 clients may also pick it as a guard, so that should be taken into account. > > Should we be running relays over IPv6 tunnels? Hurricane Electric has tunnel servers all over the world, so it's easy to pick one which will only add negligible latency: https://tunnelbroker.net/status.php Performance is not a concern either, these are not overloaded and should be quite fast. On the other hand HE.net may or may not want to have a word with you if you run a relay through them with hundreds of megabits of IPv6 traffic; but that's not something we can expect in the nearest future. [and such powerful relays are most likely in proper DCs with easily obtainable native IPv6 anyways] There's a possible privacy issue that all the HE.net tunnel traffic can technically be captured by HE.net; however all of these provide IPv6 addresses under the same AS (6939) and the same prefix of 2001:470::/32, so perhaps the same-AS avoidance code will ensure that a HE.net IPv6 is only used once in a circuit? Does it correctly handle cases when a router's IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are from different ASes? -- With respect, Roman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays