On 9/19/13, Nick Mathewson nickm@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:53 AM, grarpamp grarpamp@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest a solution to transporting IPv6 within Tor be maintained/deployed concurrently with any change in current onion addressing and or transport mechanics.
I have nothing against onioncat, but let's remember that the fact that you can squeeze a Tor hidden service address into an IPv6 address is completely accidental.
If we want to keep that ability when hidden service addresses become longer than 128 bits, the obvious solution would be to add some kind of translation layer.
Of course... since we have hidden services, there's no reason we shouldn't provide an IPv6 layer for them. Onioncat proved the utility in that. Whether it's n-bits backed, onioncat fronted or some other new form doesn't really matter... so long as there's a working IPv6 layer with the same user facing interface/route semantic as onioncat provides. That's the necessary key to making it useful.