Hi,
What is the current state of IPv6?
==cut== Relays to relays
Relays talk to other relays. The work with relays talking to other relays over IPv6 has not been started. ==cut==
Is there any plans to start? How I can help?
==cut== Directory authorities on IPv6
Clients and relays talk to directory authorities. The work with making directory authorities reachable over IPv6 has not been started.
This work will be tracked in #6027. ==cut==
Same as above? Clue is when it will be possible to run pure IPv6 relay/guard.
Regards,
-- Marcin Gondek / Drixter http://fido.e-utp.net/ AS56662
Marcin Gondek drixter@e-utp.net wrote Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:58:49 +0000:
| Hi, | | What is the current state of IPv6? | | ==cut== | Relays to relays | | Relays talk to other relays. The work with relays talking to other | relays over IPv6 has not been started. | ==cut== | | Is there any plans to start? How I can help?
No plans that I'm aware of. If you know C you can prepare a patch, run it in a Chutney test network and post it on #4565 [0].
| ==cut== | Directory authorities on IPv6 | | Clients and relays talk to directory authorities. The work with making | directory authorities reachable over IPv6 has not been started. | | This work will be tracked in #6027. | ==cut== | | Same as above?
Seems like Nick has a patch, see the ticket.
| Clue is when it will be possible to run pure IPv6 relay/guard.
We need "a substantial amount" of relays being able to make outgoing IPv6 connections and successfully publishing an IPv6 ORPort before we can allow relays to publish _only_ an IPv6 ORPort.
For guards, a client connecting over IPv6 needs a large enough set of guards to choose from. Today that number is 127 [1] (about 8%). What a large enough set is I don't know, but I'd say we're not there yet.
For middle relays, the anonymity set is limited to the number of guards with IPv6 connectivity -- only these can connect to IPv6-only middle relays. This figure is harder to estimate.
For exit relays, the reasoning is similar to the one for middle relays.
[0] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4565 [1] cat cached-consensus | awk '/^r /{r=$0; a=""}/^a /{a=$0}/^s .*Guard/{if (a) print r, a}' | wc -l
Hi,
Sorry about top-posting, it's normal with Outlook <g>
I'm not C developer but I can be someking tester.
But lack of full IPv6 support makes that relays operators doesn't really care about running/enabling IPv6. When we will have a full IPv6 support then more nodes will be available. The lack of IPv4 addresses makes that IPv6-based tor will be greather. I don't know how I can help with that. I'm keeping finger crossed that IPv6 full support in Tor will be available in near future.
The clue for me is that currently is no way to run IPv6-node.
Regards,
Hi,
You overestimate IPv6, the TOR capacity is not going to grow much just because there is v6 support. In fact we've been told for years that v4 addresses are out and pretty much everything is still business as usual. My experience is that most people don't like it and don't want it. Every ISP i work with still offers v4 and v6 optional at best.
Don't get me wrong, v6 support would be nice to have but it's far from being at the top of the list.
Hi,
AFAIK in Poland Orange offer on GSM and DSL ability to run IPv6 only, then IPv4 is NATed.
Also some IP's offer from private range and then make a big carrier-grade NAT.
When IPv6 is used, there are no NAT and there is an option to make a Peer-2-Peer connection between hosts.
What can I do to put IPv6 higher on the list of tasks?
Regards,
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
Linus Nordberg -
Marcin Gondek -
Sebastian Urbach