On 20/05/16 18:23, grarpamp wrote:
On 4/30/16, str4d str4d@i2pmail.org wrote:
On 27/04/16 22:31, grarpamp wrote:
I think there are a nontrivial number of users interested in, and using, non-strictly-TCP transport over an IPv6 tunnel interface. For example, look at users of CJDNS...
For which we should try to continue a way, in v2, to do that over anonymous overlay network Tor / I2P.
There is already some work on doing this in I2P:
https://github.com/majestrate/i2p-tools/tree/master/i2tun https://github.com/majestrate/i2p-tools/tree/master/pyi2tun
I2P also natively supports non-TCP protocols if that helps (only datagrams implemented thus far).
You mean just UDP? How would you move ICMP, GRE, raw IP/packets? Do you have to implement each one?
I mean that I2P has a numbered protocol system (like IP protocol numbers). Currently we only have three protocols defined: streaming (our TCP-like protocol), repliable datagrams (our UDP-like protocol) and non-repliable/raw datagrams (c/f raw sockets). Our higher-level APIs map clearnet TCP data onto streaming, and clearnet UDP data onto repliable datagrams.
That seems more work than implementing a generic data conduit, or an IPv6 conduit (as a more specific, host stack oriented, interoperable form). Though yes UDP would be the most useful for people after TCP.
It is relatively easy to use repliable or raw datagrams as a conduit for any other protocol. That's how i2tun is implemented.
str4d