<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12.08.2019 23:39, teor wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:06830E45-8E86-476C-A08B-262FD54DEAA4@riseup.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Hi,</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On 13 Aug 2019, at 05:08, Roman Mamedov <<a
href="mailto:rm@romanrm.net" moz-do-not-send="true">rm@romanrm.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:46:50 +0000</span><br>
<span>Christopher Sheats <<a
href="mailto:yawnbox@emeraldonion.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">yawnbox@emeraldonion.org</a>>
wrote:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Tor Project, please increase
your #IPv6 awareness/outreach similar to how</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>ARIN and the other RIRs try very
hard to do.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>Before outreach Tor would need some actual IPv6 support,
as in using it for</span><br>
<span>the actual traffic of relay-to-relay communication. I
tried running a few</span><br>
<span>relays with very fast IPv6 and slow IPv4 (due to a
common NAT frontend which</span><br>
<span>was the bottleneck), but it was a complete nonstarter.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tor relays currently don't connect over IPv6. When 10% of the
network</div>
<div>supported IPv6, there wasn't much point, because putting a
very small</div>
<div>number of paths over IPv6 has privacy risks. So we focused on
client, guard,</div>
<div>and exit IPv6 support.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">currently,
about 30% </span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255,
255, 0);">of the consensus </span><span
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">weight
supports IPv6. So we</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">are
working on a grant for IPv6 support (see below).</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We won't be able to prefer IPv6 until 50-67% of relays
support IPv6, for</div>
<div>load-balancing and privacy reasons. But we plan on using the</div>
<div>"Happy Eyeballs" (RFC 8305) algorithm on dual-stack relays.
So</div>
<div>sufficiently slow IPv4 will cause relays to connect over
IPv6. (And we can</div>
<div>tune the load-balancing using the IPv4 to IPv6 delay.)</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I still would say that these stats are deeply flawed. Looking at
the Autonomous Systems where the relays are located from the
top100, 99 of them do support IPv6 (85,7625& consensus
weight), the only one which doesn't support is AS4224 but since
they manage their AS themselves they would only need to ask their
LIR and would get IPv6.</p>
<p>So my conclusion is not that there is any need to wait for
adaption, only for software support.</p>
<p>Release one stable from which point you need IPv6 and the
operator will see that there is something to be done. You won't
affect older versions since they still can speak with you but you
won't get in the consensus from that point because you don't
fulfill all requirements for it.</p>
</body>
</html>