[tor-talk] Tor VoIP PBX Architecture Discussion / Onioncat

[Conrad Rockenhaus]

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Iain Learmonth <irl at torproject.org> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hi,
> 
> On 23/10/18 01:27, grarpamp wrote:
> 
<deletion>
>> Yes, one cannot rationally overload all 128 bits for that without colliding
>> upon allocated IPv6 space that may appear in one's host stack.
>> However the 1:1 key network can be larger than 80 bit. One could
>> easily play with up to say 125 bits by squatting on entirely
>> unallocated space. (Unlike the clear mistake CJDNS made by
>> squatting on space already allocated for a specific and conflicting
>> real world in stack purpose.) Obviously the common library widths
>> of 96 and 112 could be keyed. And request could be made for a
>> formal allocation if compatibility and compliance was felt needed
>> by some mental gymnastics.
>> 
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml
> 
> One thing I have discussed with the IETF Internet Architecture Board
> (IAB) in the past is some sort of scheme for IPv6 addressing for overlay
> networks. The result of that discussion was basically get an allocation
> from your RIR. You can get a /32 giving you 96 bits to play with. If you
> want you can announce it via BGP and provide gateways to the Internet
> but it's not required. This gives you collision-free space.
> 
> The direct mapping between the IP address and an Onion service though is
> the problem. How do you discover the Onion service public key when you
> only have 96-bits of data?

This would be a cool area to research and development on. I think Tor announcing it’s address space and the correlation of users would be a cool area to research.

> 
>> People would like IPv6 and UDP (even raw IP) transport because
>> their host stacks support it, the internet is moving to it,
>> many applications simply don't speak .onion or torify poorly,
>> and it's an interesting capability to plug into other things.
> 
> I think I see it more as a transition-mechanism than an end goal. If I
> had the time, it's 50/50 right now whether I would work on v3 OnionCat
> or some Onion-native version of a protocol (via some kind of AF_ONION
> sockets). An interesting fact I learnt recently is that FTP predates TCP
> and was actually "ported" after its original development.
> 
>> Whether in Tor or some other existing or new network,
>> try getting together to develop it, or white papering why it
>> cannot be done in any network ever. Whichever outcome,
>> any good research there would be a useful addition
>> to the set other projects might reference in developing
>> their own work.
> 
> +1 would encourage anyone that wanted to do research in this area.
> 

I gladly volunteer my time, research, hardware, and network for research in this area.

Thanks,

Conrad

> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20181023/45c1f091/attachment.sig>