> On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:54, Santiago <[email protected]> wrote: > >> El 02/10/17 a las 13:19, Scott Bennett escribió: >> grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Santiago <[email protected]> wrote: >> … >> >> Huh? What kind of ISP NATs its customers' connections? Your ISP >> should be assigning your machine/router a legitimate, unique IPv4 address. >> The assignment is often, even usually, a temporary assignment via DHCP, >> but it should not be a private address. If NAT is a factor, that should >> happen at the boundary of your own private network, not at an ISP's facility. > > It seems that a French ISP was also planning to share an IPv4 address > per four costumers. > > … >> ... One typical problem with running tor >> on a NATed machine behind such a device is that the NAT table grows until all >> of the real memory on the device has been consumed and there is no more room >> for new NAT entries. > > I am not currently able to replace the modem/router my ISP provides. But > I'd plan to give it away in the future. > > In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to > avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
We'd love to make this happen, but the anonymity implications of mixed IPv4-only and IPv6-only (non-clique) networks need further research. Search the list archives for details. T _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
