[tor-bugs] #6362 [Tor Relay]: Let relays bind and declare IPv6 addresses

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#6362: Let relays bind and declare IPv6 addresses
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  ln5               |          Owner:  ln5         
     Type:  enhancement       |         Status:  needs_review
 Priority:  normal            |      Milestone:              
Component:  Tor Relay         |        Version:              
 Keywords:  SponsorG20120930  |         Parent:  #4564       
   Points:                    |   Actualpoints:              
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Comment(by nickm):

 Replying to [comment:7 ln5]:
 > Replying to [comment:6 nickm]:
 > > Seems plausible. Was there a reason you said this wasn't ready yet
 other than the self-testing issue?
 >
 > Is it possible that you're mixing up #6362 and #6363 (Make directory
 > authorities vote on "a" lines in consensus network status
 > documents). The latter lacks support for microdescriptors.

 You said:
 {{{
 10:43 < ln5> nickm: #6621, #6362, #6363 (the last two probably not ready
 for merge yet, but feedback would be valuable)
 }}}

 I read that as saying that #6362 (this ticket) was probably not ready for
 merge.


 > > Also, is there any risk of unintentionally getting an ipv6 address
 when you didn't mean to?  If so, this patch is a little risky: it might
 make a working node accidentally advertise a non-working IPv6 address,
 thus getting the 0.2.4 authorities to mark it as down.

 > At the moment, no. Advertising an IPv6 address requires not only that
 > what's given in an ORPort option parses into AF_INET6 but also that it
 > passed !tor_addr_is_internal() with 'for_listening==0, i.e. is not
 > "[::]" (see #5146). This might change when we fix #5940 (which needs
 > design love btw).

 Okay.  So, I don't know a reason not to merge this then.

 > A related question is how we should treat "ORPort 4711" on a system
 > with an IPv6 address. This is unresolved in prop186 -- should the
 > 'AllAddrs' option be on by default?

 Eventually, yes!  But not before self-testing can work, or there will be
 trouble.

 Last question: How tested is this?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6362#comment:8>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online