"One of the property that the network should have (even though it is not
always true) is that every relays should be able to talk to every other
relays. And thus if we have IPv4 only relays that cannot talk to IPv6 relays
only, we partition the network and this is no good."
A very good point, but
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:54:50 +0100
Casper wrote:
> I found a "kind of solution" about that.
>
> Behind my fibre optique, I took 26000-26999 tcp ports with the NAT for
> IPv4
>
> so I have 1 relay using pop3/pop3s for IPv4/IPv6, and many "little"
> relays on the range 26000-26999 for IPv4/IPv6.
> On 25. Feb 2021, at 18:30, Toralf Förster wrote:
>
> On 2/24/21 9:34 PM, William Kane wrote:
>> Thank you for running obfs4 bridges with iat_mode != 0, only very few
>> obfs4 bridges support the additional traffic obfuscation in both
>> directions.
> SO why is this not the default?
And why
David Goulet a écrit :
> On 24 Feb (12:02:11), Dr Gerard Bulger wrote:
> > I am sure I am not alone in having much wasted bandwidth that could be put
> > to good Tor use but they are only accessible via IPv6, while they can exit
> > of course IPv4 and IPv6
I found a "kind of solution" about that.
On 2/24/21 9:34 PM, William Kane wrote:
Thank you for running obfs4 bridges with iat_mode != 0, only very few
obfs4 bridges support the additional traffic obfuscation in both
directions.
SO why is this not the default?
--
Toralf
___
tor-relays
On 2/25/21 6:32 PM, niftybunny wrote:
And why did I read about this the first time in a mailing list?
+1
--
Toralf
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Roman Mamedov a écrit :
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:54:50 +0100
> Casper wrote:
>
> > I found a "kind of solution" about that.
> >
> > Behind my fibre optique, I took 26000-26999 tcp ports with the NAT for
> > IPv4
> >
> > so I have 1 relay using pop3/pop3s for IPv4/IPv6, and many "little"
> >
I just added that feature to my bridge today! That line of code should be on
the tor site so that bridge runners can automatically add it to their torrc
files.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Original Message
On Feb 25, 2021, 12:30 PM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 2/24/21 9:34 PM,
On 24 Feb (12:02:11), Dr Gerard Bulger wrote:
> Thinking of IPv6:
>
> How far has the team got in implementing IPv6 only OR port facility ?
As of tor 0.4.5.x release, IPv6 is fully supported for tor clients and relays.
>
> Currently you can only run tor relay of any sort if there is open IPv4
On 24 Feb (11:08:15), Onion Operator wrote:
> Saluton,
>
> My relay started to log this message since 0.4.5.5:
>
> Auto-discovered IPv6 address [...]:443 has not been found reachable. However,
> IPv4 address is reachable. Publishing server descriptor without IPv6 address.
> [2 similar
On 2/24/21 9:34 PM, William Kane wrote:
Thank you for running obfs4 bridges with iat_mode != 0, only very few
obfs4 bridges support the additional traffic obfuscation in both
directions.
At my client I have iat_mode=2 set but I do wonder how to set that as
default at a bridge?
--
Toralf
"ServerTransportOptions obfs4 iat-mode=2" in torrc
On February 25, 2021 11:16:52 AM GMT+03:00, "Toralf Förster"
wrote:
>On 2/24/21 9:34 PM, William Kane wrote:
>> Thank you for running obfs4 bridges with iat_mode != 0, only very few
>> obfs4 bridges support the additional traffic obfuscation
On 2/24/2021 12:34 PM, William Kane wrote:
Thank you for running obfs4 bridges with iat_mode != 0, only very few
obfs4 bridges support the additional traffic obfuscation in both
directions.
Kudos to you my friend.
- William
Should I take this as a recommendation to update my bridges to support
13 matches
Mail list logo
