teor teor2345@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:54, Santiago santiagorr@riseup.net wrote:
El 02/10/17 a las 13:19, Scott Bennett escribi?: grarpamp grarpamp@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Santiago santiagorr@riseup.net wrote:
?
Huh? What kind of ISP NATs its customers' connections? Your ISPshould be assigning your machine/router a legitimate, unique IPv4 address. The assignment is often, even usually, a temporary assignment via DHCP, but it should not be a private address. If NAT is a factor, that should happen at the boundary of your own private network, not at an ISP's facility.
It seems that a French ISP was also planning to share an IPv4 address per four costumers.
?
... One typical problem with running tor on a NATed machine behind such a device is that the NAT table grows until all of the real memory on the device has been consumed and there is no more room for new NAT entries.
I am not currently able to replace the modem/router my ISP provides. But I'd plan to give it away in the future.
In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
We'd love to make this happen, but the anonymity implications of mixed IPv4-only and IPv6-only (non-clique) networks need further research. Search the list archives for details.
teor, Couldn't that be taken care of in the tor client code? For example, a client, having chosen a path through which an IPv6-only relay, could extend the path by one hop to tunnel through a node with both types of interface published? A related question is can a relay with only an IPv4 address published currently set an IPv6 OutboundBindAddress?
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at sdf.org *xor* bennett at freeshell.org * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************