teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:54, Santiago <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > >> El 02/10/17 a las 13:19, Scott Bennett escribi?: > >> grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Santiago <santiag...@riseup.net> 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. > teor, Couldn't that be taken care of in the tor client code? For example, a client, having chosen a path through which an IPv6-only relay, could extend the path by one hop to tunnel through a node with both types of interface published? A related question is can a relay with only an IPv4 address published currently set an IPv6 OutboundBindAddress?
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at sdf.org *xor* bennett at freeshell.org * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays