<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><div>On 25 Dec 2017, at 23:37, Stijn Jonker <<a href="mailto:sjcjonker@sjc.nl">sjcjonker@sjc.nl</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<title></title>
<div>Hi Nusenu/Valters,<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thanks for the reply and links; what isn’t entirely clear is the following scenario. What if I provide IPv4 via NAT, and IPv6 for the relay, hiding the IPv4 address, possibly with the “NoAdvertise” on the IPv4 entries for those.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Reading the trac page I’m not sure whether this would work, as there will be no IPv4 inbound possible, only IPv4 outbound and IPv6 in and outbound.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This doesn't work for relays because of reachability checks.</div><div><br></div><div>It should works for bridges, but we broke it a few releases ago</div><div>by changing the descriptor checks, and never fixed it:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4847">https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4847</a></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div>Additionally would it benefit the tor service or is it then only “show”? Sorry but that’s not entirely clear from what I can find published (and googling away).</div></div></blockquote><br><div>It would be helpful to have a bridge with IPv6 inbound and</div><div>IPv4 outbound. But no-one has got around to fixing it yet.</div><div><br></div><div>T</div></body></html>