[tor-dev] Please consider allowing /48 for VirtualAddrNetworkIPv6

[Alex Elsayed]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:45:00 -0400, grarpamp wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Alex Elsayed <eternaleye at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> (Yes, there is a typo in the last IPv6 address as well.
>>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/20153 )
> 
> Yes Tor is making some quite bad text representation issues so I added
> summary of them to this ticket.
> 
>> - [FC00]/8 is _reserved by the IANA_, and beyond that, CJDNS is already
>> squatting on it. :/
> 
> As all their independant users are not really one 'AS number' like
> entity where the concept of 'local' policy would then apply to all,
> CJDNS does present some problems in this area. Possibly with
> interoperating with other IPv6 based overlay networks and adapters /
> tunnels. I hope they're aware of them. Unfortunately to fix I think
> they'd have to rearchitect,
> or at least renumber to squat elsewhere... both being rather unpalatable
> from their point of view. Specifically, if I recall, they're abusing the
> 'L' bit in the RFC, squatting the undefined 0. I don't think so but
> would have to double check if they're also stomping the 1. Obviously
> generating into a proper L=1 /48 is not practical. As with the .onion
> and .i2p DNS reservations, I'd highly suggest CJDNS apply to IANA for a
> special /whatever they could then generate into.

Note that I used /8 rather than /7 when referring to CJDNS - that is, L=0 
only, and not L=1.

Also such a "special /whatever" already exists, in the form of ORCHIDv2 
(RFC 7343) - it was created for HIPv2, but _intentionally_ left open 
encoding room for other systems. They'd just need to ask the IANA to 
allocate them am OGA ID (Orchid Generation Algorithm).

(ORCHID: Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash ID)

Also, .onion and .i2p are at the DNS level, not the IP level - part of 
the point of CJDNS is that the addresses are directly routable.

Of course, my opinion is that CJDNS does nothing that is not also done, 
and better, by HIPv2, which also uses direct-routable addresses.

> Yes in general networks shouldn't ride on top of space others are
> legitimately using per RFC, such as the ULA space. Even riding on some
> unallocated unicast space outside 2000::/3 that IANA is unlikely to ever
> allocate to the global IPv6 routing table of host networks would be
> preferred over that. That is, if you don't apply for a special purpose
> allocation.
> 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-
space.xhtml
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-
special-registry.xhtml
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev