|
@@ -3,281 +3,301 @@ Proposal : IPv6 exit
|
|
Overview
|
|
Overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extend Tor for TCP exit via IPv6 transport and DNS resolution of IPv6
|
|
Extend Tor for TCP exit via IPv6 transport and DNS resolution of IPv6
|
|
- addresses. This proposal does not imply any IPv6 support for OR traffic,
|
|
+ addresses. This proposal does not imply any IPv6 support for OR
|
|
- only exit and name resolution.
|
|
+ traffic, only exit and name resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents
|
|
Contents
|
|
|
|
|
|
0. Motivation
|
|
0. Motivation
|
|
|
|
|
|
- As the IPv4 address space becomes more scarce there is increasing effort to
|
|
+ As the IPv4 address space becomes more scarce there is increasing
|
|
- provide Internet services via the IPv6 protocol. Many hosts are available
|
|
+ effort to provide Internet services via the IPv6 protocol. Many
|
|
- at IPv6 endpoints which are currently inaccessible for Tor users.
|
|
+ hosts are available at IPv6 endpoints which are currently
|
|
|
|
+ inaccessible for Tor users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Extending Tor to support IPv6 exit streams and IPv6 DNS name resolution will
|
|
+ Extending Tor to support IPv6 exit streams and IPv6 DNS name
|
|
- allow users of the Tor network to access these hosts. This capability would
|
|
+ resolution will allow users of the Tor network to access these hosts.
|
|
- be present for those who do not currently have IPv6 access, thus increasing
|
|
+ This capability would be present for those who do not currently have
|
|
- the utility of Tor and furthering adoption of IPv6.
|
|
+ IPv6 access, thus increasing the utility of Tor and furthering
|
|
|
|
+ adoption of IPv6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Design
|
|
1. Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1. General design overview
|
|
1.1. General design overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
- There are three main components to this proposal. The first is a method for
|
|
+ There are three main components to this proposal. The first is a
|
|
- routers to advertise their ability to exit IPv6 traffic. The second is the
|
|
+ method for routers to advertise their ability to exit IPv6 traffic.
|
|
- manner in which routers resolve names to IPv6 addresses. Last but not least
|
|
+ The second is the manner in which routers resolve names to IPv6
|
|
- is the method in which clients communicate with Tor to resolve and connect
|
|
+ addresses. Last but not least is the method in which clients
|
|
- to IPv6 endpoints anonymously.
|
|
+ communicate with Tor to resolve and connect to IPv6 endpoints
|
|
|
|
+ anonymously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2. Router IPv6 exit support
|
|
1.2. Router IPv6 exit support
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In order to specify exit policies and IPv6 capability new directives in the
|
|
+ In order to specify exit policies and IPv6 capability new directives
|
|
- Tor configuration will be needed. If a router advertises IPv6 exit policies
|
|
+ in the Tor configuration will be needed. If a router advertises IPv6
|
|
- in its descriptor this will signal the ability to provide IPv6 exit. There
|
|
+ exit policies in its descriptor this will signal the ability to
|
|
- are a number of additional default deny rules associated with this new
|
|
+ provide IPv6 exit. There are a number of additional default deny
|
|
- address space which are detailed in the addendum.
|
|
+ rules associated with this new address space which are detailed in
|
|
|
|
+ the addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- When Tor is started on a host it should check for the presence of a global
|
|
+ When Tor is started on a host it should check for the presence of a
|
|
- unicast address, [2000::]/3, and if present include the default IPv6 exit
|
|
+ global unicast address, [2000::]/3, and if present include the
|
|
- policies and any user specified IPv6 exit policies.
|
|
+ default IPv6 exit policies and any user specified IPv6 exit policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- If a user provides IPv6 exit policies but no global unicast address is
|
|
+ If a user provides IPv6 exit policies but no global unicast address
|
|
- available Tor should generate a warning and not publish the IPv6 policy in
|
|
+ is available Tor should generate a warning and not publish the IPv6
|
|
- the router descriptor.
|
|
+ policy in the router descriptor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses are not valid exit
|
|
It should be noted that IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses are not valid exit
|
|
- destinations. This mechanism is mainly used to interoperate with both IPv4
|
|
+ destinations. This mechanism is mainly used to interoperate with
|
|
- and IPv6 clients on the same socket. Any attempts to use an IPv4 mapped
|
|
+ both IPv4 and IPv6 clients on the same socket. Any attempts to use
|
|
- IPv6 address, perhaps to circumvent exit policy for IPv4, must be refused.
|
|
+ an IPv4 mapped IPv6 address, perhaps to circumvent exit policy for
|
|
|
|
+ IPv4, must be refused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3. DNS name resolution of IPv6 addresses (AAAA records)
|
|
1.3. DNS name resolution of IPv6 addresses (AAAA records)
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In addition to exit support for IPv6 TCP connections, a method to resolve
|
|
+ In addition to exit support for IPv6 TCP connections, a method to
|
|
- domain names to their respective IPv6 addresses is also needed. This is
|
|
+ resolve domain names to their respective IPv6 addresses is also
|
|
- accomplished in the existing DNS system via AAAA records. Routers will
|
|
+ needed. This is accomplished in the existing DNS system via AAAA
|
|
- perform both A and AAAA requests when resolving a name so that the client can
|
|
+ records. Routers will perform both A and AAAA requests when
|
|
- utilize an IPv6 endpoint when available or preferred.
|
|
+ resolving a name so that the client can utilize an IPv6 endpoint when
|
|
|
|
+ available or preferred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- To avoid potential problems with caching DNS servers that behave poorly all
|
|
+ To avoid potential problems with caching DNS servers that behave
|
|
- NXDOMAIN responses to AAAA requests should be ignored if a successful
|
|
+ poorly all NXDOMAIN responses to AAAA requests should be ignored if a
|
|
- response is received for an A request. This implies that both AAAA and A
|
|
+ successful response is received for an A request. This implies that
|
|
- requests will always be performed for each name resolution.
|
|
+ both AAAA and A requests will always be performed for each name
|
|
|
|
+ resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- For reverse lookups on IPv6 addresses, like that used for RESOLVE_PTR, Tor
|
|
+ For reverse lookups on IPv6 addresses, like that used for
|
|
- will perform the necessary PTR requests via IP6.ARPA.
|
|
+ RESOLVE_PTR, Tor will perform the necessary PTR requests via
|
|
|
|
+ IP6.ARPA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- All routers which perform DNS resolution on behalf of clients (RELAY_RESOLVE)
|
|
+ All routers which perform DNS resolution on behalf of clients
|
|
- should perform and respond with both A and AAAA resources.
|
|
+ (RELAY_RESOLVE) should perform and respond with both A and AAAA
|
|
|
|
+ resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4. Client interaction with IPv6 exit capability
|
|
1.4. Client interaction with IPv6 exit capability
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.1. Usability goals
|
|
1.4.1. Usability goals
|
|
|
|
|
|
- There are a number of behaviors which Tor can provide when interacting with
|
|
+ There are a number of behaviors which Tor can provide when
|
|
- clients that will improve the usability of IPv6 exit capability. These
|
|
+ interacting with clients that will improve the usability of IPv6 exit
|
|
- behaviors are designed to make it simple for clients to express a preference
|
|
+ capability. These behaviors are designed to make it simple for
|
|
- for IPv6 transport and utilize IPv6 host services.
|
|
+ clients to express a preference for IPv6 transport and utilize IPv6
|
|
|
|
+ host services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.2. SOCKSv5 IPv6 client behavior
|
|
1.4.2. SOCKSv5 IPv6 client behavior
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The SOCKS version 5 protocol supports IPv6 connections. When using SOCKSv5
|
|
+ The SOCKS version 5 protocol supports IPv6 connections. When using
|
|
- with hostnames it is difficult to determine if a client wishes to use an IPv4
|
|
+ SOCKSv5 with hostnames it is difficult to determine if a client
|
|
- or IPv6 address to connect to the desired host if it resolves to both address
|
|
+ wishes to use an IPv4 or IPv6 address to connect to the desired host
|
|
- types.
|
|
+ if it resolves to both address types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In order to make this more intuitive the SOCKSv5 protocol can be supported on
|
|
+ In order to make this more intuitive the SOCKSv5 protocol can be
|
|
- a local IPv6 endpoint, [::1] port 9050 for example. When a client requests
|
|
+ supported on a local IPv6 endpoint, [::1] port 9050 for example.
|
|
- a connection to the desired host via an IPv6 SOCKS connection Tor will prefer
|
|
+ When a client requests a connection to the desired host via an IPv6
|
|
- IPv6 addresses when resolving the host name and connecting to the host.
|
|
+ SOCKS connection Tor will prefer IPv6 addresses when resolving the
|
|
|
|
+ host name and connecting to the host.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Likewise, RESOLVE and RESOLVE_PTR requests from an IPv6 SOCKS connection will
|
|
+ Likewise, RESOLVE and RESOLVE_PTR requests from an IPv6 SOCKS
|
|
- return IPv6 addresses when available, and fall back to IPv4 addresses if not.
|
|
+ connection will return IPv6 addresses when available, and fall back
|
|
|
|
+ to IPv4 addresses if not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.3. MAPADDRESS behavior
|
|
1.4.3. MAPADDRESS behavior
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The MAPADDRESS capability supports clients that may not be able to use the
|
|
+ The MAPADDRESS capability supports clients that may not be able to
|
|
- SOCKSv4a or SOCKSv5 hostname support to resolve names via Tor. This ability
|
|
+ use the SOCKSv4a or SOCKSv5 hostname support to resolve names via
|
|
- should be extended to IPv6 addresses in SOCKSv5 as well.
|
|
+ Tor. This ability should be extended to IPv6 addresses in SOCKSv5 as
|
|
-
|
|
+ well.
|
|
- When a client requests an address mapping from the wildcard IPv6 address,
|
|
+
|
|
- [::0], the server will respond with a unique local IPv6 address on success.
|
|
+ When a client requests an address mapping from the wildcard IPv6
|
|
- It is important to note that there may be two mappings for the same name
|
|
+ address, [::0], the server will respond with a unique local IPv6
|
|
- if both an IPv4 and IPv6 address are associated with the host. In this case
|
|
+ address on success. It is important to note that there may be two
|
|
- a CONNECT to a mapped IPv6 address should prefer IPv6 for the connection to
|
|
+ mappings for the same name if both an IPv4 and IPv6 address are
|
|
- the host, if available, while CONNECT to a mapped IPv4 address will prefer
|
|
+ associated with the host. In this case a CONNECT to a mapped IPv6
|
|
- IPv4.
|
|
+ address should prefer IPv6 for the connection to the host, if
|
|
-
|
|
+ available, while CONNECT to a mapped IPv4 address will prefer IPv4.
|
|
- It should be noted that IPv6 does not provide the concept of a host local
|
|
+
|
|
- subnet, like 127.0.0.0/8 in IPv4. For this reason integration of Tor with
|
|
+ It should be noted that IPv6 does not provide the concept of a host
|
|
- IPv6 clients should consider a firewall or filter rule to drop unique
|
|
+ local subnet, like 127.0.0.0/8 in IPv4. For this reason integration
|
|
- local addresses to or from the network when possible. These packets should
|
|
+ of Tor with IPv6 clients should consider a firewall or filter rule to
|
|
- not be routed, however, keeping them off the subnet entirely is worthwhile.
|
|
+ drop unique local addresses to or from the network when possible.
|
|
|
|
+ These packets should not be routed, however, keeping them off the
|
|
|
|
+ subnet entirely is worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.3.1. Generating unique local IPv6 addresses
|
|
1.4.3.1. Generating unique local IPv6 addresses
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The usual manner of generating a unique local IPv6 address is to select a
|
|
+ The usual manner of generating a unique local IPv6 address is to
|
|
- Global ID part randomly, along with a Subnet ID, and sharing this prefix
|
|
+ select a Global ID part randomly, along with a Subnet ID, and sharing
|
|
- among the communicating parties who each have their own distinct Interface
|
|
+ this prefix among the communicating parties who each have their own
|
|
- ID. In this style a given Tor instance might select a random Global and
|
|
+ distinct Interface ID. In this style a given Tor instance might
|
|
- Subnet ID and provide MAPADDRESS assignments with a random Interface ID as
|
|
+ select a random Global and Subnet ID and provide MAPADDRESS
|
|
- needed. This has the potential to associate unique Global/Subnet identifiers
|
|
+ assignments with a random Interface ID as needed. This has the
|
|
- with a given Tor instance and may expose attacks against the anonymity of Tor
|
|
+ potential to associate unique Global/Subnet identifiers with a given
|
|
|
|
+ Tor instance and may expose attacks against the anonymity of Tor
|
|
users.
|
|
users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Tor avoid this potential problem entirely MAPADDRESS must always generate the
|
|
+ Tor avoid this potential problem entirely MAPADDRESS must always
|
|
- Global, Subnet, and Interface IDs randomly for each request. It is also
|
|
+ generate the Global, Subnet, and Interface IDs randomly for each
|
|
- highly suggested that explicitly specifying an IPv6 source address instead of
|
|
+ request. It is also highly suggested that explicitly specifying an
|
|
- the wildcard address not be supported to ensure that a good random address is
|
|
+ IPv6 source address instead of the wildcard address not be supported
|
|
- used.
|
|
+ to ensure that a good random address is used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.4. DNSProxy IPv6 client behavior
|
|
1.4.4. DNSProxy IPv6 client behavior
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A new capability in recent Tor versions is the transparent DNS proxy. This
|
|
+ A new capability in recent Tor versions is the transparent DNS proxy.
|
|
- feature will need to return both A and AAAA resource records when responding
|
|
+ This feature will need to return both A and AAAA resource records
|
|
- to client name resolution requests.
|
|
+ when responding to client name resolution requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The transparent DNS proxy should also support reverse lookups for IPv6
|
|
+ The transparent DNS proxy should also support reverse lookups for
|
|
- addresses. It is suggested that any such requests to the deprecated IP6.INT
|
|
+ IPv6 addresses. It is suggested that any such requests to the
|
|
- domain should be translated to IP6.ARPA instead. This translation is not
|
|
+ deprecated IP6.INT domain should be translated to IP6.ARPA instead.
|
|
- likely to be used and is of low priority.
|
|
+ This translation is not likely to be used and is of low priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- It would be nice to support DNS over IPv6 transport as well, however, this
|
|
+ It would be nice to support DNS over IPv6 transport as well, however,
|
|
- is not likely to be used and is of low priority.
|
|
+ this is not likely to be used and is of low priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4.5. TransPort IPv6 client behavior
|
|
1.4.5. TransPort IPv6 client behavior
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Tor also provides transparent TCP proxy support via the Trans* directives in
|
|
+ Tor also provides transparent TCP proxy support via the Trans*
|
|
- the configuration. The TransListenAddress directive should accept an IPv6
|
|
+ directives in the configuration. The TransListenAddress directive
|
|
- address in addition to IPv4 so that IPv6 TCP connections can be transparently
|
|
+ should accept an IPv6 address in addition to IPv4 so that IPv6 TCP
|
|
- proxied.
|
|
+ connections can be transparently proxied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5. Additional changes
|
|
1.5. Additional changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The RedirectExit option should be deprecated rather than extending this
|
|
+ The RedirectExit option should be deprecated rather than extending
|
|
- feature to IPv6.
|
|
+ this feature to IPv6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Spec changes
|
|
2. Spec changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1. Tor specification
|
|
2.1. Tor specification
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In '6.2. Opening streams and transferring data' the following should be
|
|
+ In '6.2. Opening streams and transferring data' the following should
|
|
- changed to indicate IPv6 exit capability:
|
|
+ be changed to indicate IPv6 exit capability:
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No version of Tor currently generates the IPv6 format."
|
|
"No version of Tor currently generates the IPv6 format."
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In '6.4. Remote hostname lookup' the following should be updated to reflect
|
|
+ In '6.4. Remote hostname lookup' the following should be updated to
|
|
- use of ip6.arpa in addition to in-addr.arpa.
|
|
+ reflect use of ip6.arpa in addition to in-addr.arpa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"For a reverse lookup, the OP sends a RELAY_RESOLVE cell containing an
|
|
"For a reverse lookup, the OP sends a RELAY_RESOLVE cell containing an
|
|
in-addr.arpa address."
|
|
in-addr.arpa address."
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In 'A.1. Differences between spec and implementation' the following should
|
|
+ In 'A.1. Differences between spec and implementation' the following
|
|
- be updated to indicate IPv6 exit capability:
|
|
+ should be updated to indicate IPv6 exit capability:
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The current codebase has no IPv6 support at all."
|
|
"The current codebase has no IPv6 support at all."
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2. Directory specification
|
|
2.2. Directory specification
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In '2.1. Router descriptor format' a new set of directives is needed for
|
|
+ In '2.1. Router descriptor format' a new set of directives is needed
|
|
- IPv6 exit policy. The existing accept/reject directives should be
|
|
+ for IPv6 exit policy. The existing accept/reject directives should
|
|
- clarified to indicate IPv4 or wildcard address relevance. The new IPv6
|
|
+ be clarified to indicate IPv4 or wildcard address relevance. The new
|
|
- directives will be in the form of:
|
|
+ IPv6 directives will be in the form of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
"accept6" exitpattern NL
|
|
"accept6" exitpattern NL
|
|
"reject6" exitpattern NL
|
|
"reject6" exitpattern NL
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The section describing accept6/reject6 should explain that the presence
|
|
+ The section describing accept6/reject6 should explain that the
|
|
- of accept6 or reject6 exit policies in a router descriptor signals the
|
|
+ presence of accept6 or reject6 exit policies in a router descriptor
|
|
- ability of that router to exit IPv6 traffic (according to IPv6 exit
|
|
+ signals the ability of that router to exit IPv6 traffic (according to
|
|
- policies).
|
|
+ IPv6 exit policies).
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The "[::]/0" notation is used to represent "all IPv6 addresses". "[::0]/0"
|
|
+ The "[::]/0" notation is used to represent "all IPv6 addresses".
|
|
- may also be used for this representation.
|
|
+ "[::0]/0" may also be used for this representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- If a user specifies a 'reject6 [::]/0:*' policy in the Tor configuration this
|
|
+ If a user specifies a 'reject6 [::]/0:*' policy in the Tor
|
|
- will be interpreted as forcing no IPv6 exit support and no accept6/reject6
|
|
+ configuration this will be interpreted as forcing no IPv6 exit
|
|
- policies will be included in the published descriptor. This will prevent
|
|
+ support and no accept6/reject6 policies will be included in the
|
|
- IPv6 exit if the router host has a global unicast IPv6 address present.
|
|
+ published descriptor. This will prevent IPv6 exit if the router host
|
|
|
|
+ has a global unicast IPv6 address present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- It is important to note that a wildcard address in an accept or reject policy
|
|
+ It is important to note that a wildcard address in an accept or
|
|
- applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
|
|
+ reject policy applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3. Control specification
|
|
2.3. Control specification
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In '3.8. MAPADDRESS' the potential to have to addresses for a given name
|
|
+ In '3.8. MAPADDRESS' the potential to have to addresses for a given
|
|
- should be explained. The method for generating unique local addresses
|
|
+ name should be explained. The method for generating unique local
|
|
- for IPv6 mappings needs explanation as described above.
|
|
+ addresses for IPv6 mappings needs explanation as described above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When IPv6 addresses are used in this document they should include the
|
|
When IPv6 addresses are used in this document they should include the
|
|
- brackets for consistency. For example, the null IPv6 address should be
|
|
+ brackets for consistency. For example, the null IPv6 address should
|
|
- written as "[::0]" and not "::0". The control commands will expect the
|
|
+ be written as "[::0]" and not "::0". The control commands will
|
|
- same syntax as well.
|
|
+ expect the same syntax as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In '3.9. GETINFO' the "address" command should return both public IPv4 and
|
|
+ In '3.9. GETINFO' the "address" command should return both public
|
|
- IPv6 addresses if present. These addresses should be separated via \r\n.
|
|
+ IPv4 and IPv6 addresses if present. These addresses should be
|
|
|
|
+ separated via \r\n.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.4. Tor SOCKS extensions
|
|
2.4. Tor SOCKS extensions
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In '2. Name lookup' a description of IPv6 address resolution is needed for
|
|
+ In '2. Name lookup' a description of IPv6 address resolution is
|
|
- SOCKSv5 as described above. IPv6 addresses should be supported in both the
|
|
+ needed for SOCKSv5 as described above. IPv6 addresses should be
|
|
- RESOLVE and RESOLVE_PTR extensions.
|
|
+ supported in both the RESOLVE and RESOLVE_PTR extensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A new section describing the ability to accept SOCKSv5 clients on a local
|
|
+ A new section describing the ability to accept SOCKSv5 clients on a
|
|
- IPv6 address to indicate a preference for IPv6 transport as described above
|
|
+ local IPv6 address to indicate a preference for IPv6 transport as
|
|
- is also needed. The behavior of Tor SOCKSv5 proxy with an IPv6 preference
|
|
+ described above is also needed. The behavior of Tor SOCKSv5 proxy
|
|
- should be explained, for example, preferring IPv6 transport to a named host
|
|
+ with an IPv6 preference should be explained, for example, preferring
|
|
- with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses available (A and AAAA records).
|
|
+ IPv6 transport to a named host with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
|
|
|
|
+ available (A and AAAA records).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Questions and concerns
|
|
3. Questions and concerns
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1. DNS A6 records
|
|
3.1. DNS A6 records
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A6 is explicitly avoided in this document. There are potential reasons for
|
|
+ A6 is explicitly avoided in this document. There are potential
|
|
- implementing this, however, the inherent complexity of the protocol and
|
|
+ reasons for implementing this, however, the inherent complexity of
|
|
- resolvers make this unappealing. Is there a compelling reason to consider
|
|
+ the protocol and resolvers make this unappealing. Is there a
|
|
- A6 as part of IPv6 exit support?
|
|
+ compelling reason to consider A6 as part of IPv6 exit support?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2. IPv4 and IPv6 preference
|
|
3.2. IPv4 and IPv6 preference
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The design above tries to infer a preference for IPv4 or IPv6 transport
|
|
+ The design above tries to infer a preference for IPv4 or IPv6
|
|
- based on client interactions with Tor. It might be useful to provide
|
|
+ transport based on client interactions with Tor. It might be useful
|
|
- more explicit control over this preference. For example, an IPv4 SOCKSv5
|
|
+ to provide more explicit control over this preference. For example,
|
|
- client may want to use IPv6 transport to named hosts in CONNECT requests
|
|
+ an IPv4 SOCKSv5 client may want to use IPv6 transport to named hosts
|
|
- while the current implementation would assume an IPv4 preference. Should
|
|
+ in CONNECT requests while the current implementation would assume an
|
|
- more explicit control be available, through either configuration directives
|
|
+ IPv4 preference. Should more explicit control be available, through
|
|
- or control commands?
|
|
+ either configuration directives or control commands?
|
|
|
|
|
|
- This can be worked around by resolving names and then CONNECTing to an IPv4
|
|
+ This can be worked around by resolving names and then CONNECTing to
|
|
- or IPv6 address as desired, however, not all client applications may have
|
|
+ an IPv4 or IPv6 address as desired, however, not all client
|
|
- this option available.
|
|
+ applications may have this option available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3. Support for IPv6 only clients
|
|
3.3. Support for IPv6 only clients
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may be useful to support IPv6 only clients using IPv4 mapped IPv6
|
|
It may be useful to support IPv6 only clients using IPv4 mapped IPv6
|
|
- addresses. This would require transparent DNS proxy using IPv6
|
|
+ addresses. This would require transparent DNS proxy using IPv6
|
|
transport and the ability to map A record responses into IPv4 mapped
|
|
transport and the ability to map A record responses into IPv4 mapped
|
|
- IPv6 addresses. The transparent TCP proxy would thus need to detect these
|
|
+ IPv6 addresses. The transparent TCP proxy would thus need to detect
|
|
- mapped addresses and connect to the desired IPv4 host.
|
|
+ these mapped addresses and connect to the desired IPv4 host.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The relative lack of any IPv6 only hosts or applications makes this a lot of
|
|
+ The relative lack of any IPv6 only hosts or applications makes this a
|
|
- work for very little gain. Is there a compelling reason to support this
|
|
+ lot of work for very little gain. Is there a compelling reason to
|
|
- capability?
|
|
+ support this capability?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4. IPv6 DNS and older Tor routers
|
|
3.4. IPv6 DNS and older Tor routers
|
|
|
|
|
|
- It is expected that many routers will continue to run with older versions of
|
|
+ It is expected that many routers will continue to run with older
|
|
- Tor when the IPv6 exit capability is released. Clients who wish to use IPv6
|
|
+ versions of Tor when the IPv6 exit capability is released. Clients
|
|
- will need to route RELAY_RESOLVE requests to the newer routers which will
|
|
+ who wish to use IPv6 will need to route RELAY_RESOLVE requests to the
|
|
- respond with both A and AAAA resource records when possible.
|
|
+ newer routers which will respond with both A and AAAA resource
|
|
|
|
+ records when possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- One way to do this is to route RELAY_RESOLVE requests to routers with IPv6
|
|
+ One way to do this is to route RELAY_RESOLVE requests to routers with
|
|
- exit policies published, however, this would not utilize current routers
|
|
+ IPv6 exit policies published, however, this would not utilize current
|
|
- that can resolve IPv6 addresses even if they can't exit such traffic.
|
|
+ routers that can resolve IPv6 addresses even if they can't exit such
|
|
|
|
+ traffic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Addendum
|
|
4. Addendum
|