[tor-talk] Bridge Communities?

[Alex M (Coyo)]

On 04/13/2013 12:14 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>> I mean, most overlays out there are NOT for anonymity
> Not for strong anonymity at least. Many are closes source windows blobs
> and generally weighted towards filesharing and vague vpn privacy claims.
> Those are definitely the ones to avoid. If you can't see and change the code
> it's not worth one bit of your time beyond cataloging it's 'features'
> for possible
> reimplementation.

To be honest, I do that all of the time. I have reverse engineered skype 
to a certain extent and run massive clusters of virtual machines and 
virtual networks to reverse engineer the behavior of the skype network, 
and have very VERY heavily studied the skype api, all versions of it.

i did this with the sole purpose of taking the good ideas, concepts and 
features from it for purposes of planning on a new network, 
reimplementing the features i like, and cherry picking from HUNDREDS of 
other protocols and network models for my own overlay project.

In case you were wondering, the project is named Fennec, and I have not 
yet published a git repository for it, yet. I'm not ready.

>
>> Sure, i2P exists, but who wants to spin up a huge honking java virtual
>> machine just to participate in that relay pool?
> It's actually pretty easy and can run on modest hardware as a node.

Maybe so, but I personally prefer keeping java off my machines in any form.

>
>> Not only that, but i2P (last I checked) does not support IPv6 Eepsites,
>> while Tor is (slowly) getting to that point.
> Neither do, and neither are. You can shim both with onioncat to
> some caveated win.

I must have been misinformed. I know you can do it (in theory) with 
netcat or some other tunneling mechanism, such as tinc or quicktun vpns, 
but that's not a real solution.

I had not heard of onioncat.

>
>> IPv6 eepsites/hidden services is an important feature to me.
> Absolutely.
>
>> GNUnet or even more obscure overlays do not have stable featuresets
>> regarding generic unmodified TCP or UDP services, be it over IPv4 or IPv6.
> Phantom does this completely already, but is even more obscure.

I have heard of phantom, but I thought it was no longer actively 
developed, and had not been actively developed for years. Has it be 
quietly forked and developed somewhere I don't know about?

>
>> Sure GNUnet has IPv6 private VPNs on the eventual roadmap, and sure you
>> could extend that to virtual interfaces, and sure you could enable linux or
>> whatever to act as a router between those interfaces, you could even enable
>> Quagga or whatever to swap an (alternative) BGP peering table, but GNUnet
>> has a lot of other priorities, and isn't likely to get around to that
> On the IPv6 interop front, the only thing these projects need to code
> is unique address in specific /48 bound to an IPv6 interface and mapped
> to internal 80bit address [sub]space for transport. User will setup all those
> interconnects. There are projects in the works...

That would be cool. Too bad I can't code C.

Though, some coder and engie friends of mine are talking about 
kidnapping me from home and tying me up and forcing me to learn C or 
suffer the consequences.

These consequences are not safe for work, so I will spare your sanity.

This time. :)