on",
"special-use", "sutld", or "alt-tld" on their ML viewer [0] and reading
the (extensive) back-history of these discussions. See below for a link
to my earlier comments on this tor-dev thread [1], as well as several
IETF drafts you may wish to read and comment on
.alt first,
and didn't have FOOnet installed, should they try *.foo in the DNS? The
browser either needs to know the full contents of *.alt (which is not
possibly because by design it will have no official registration), or
every registered TLD in DNS (which won't ever be added
reatly
increasing the number of bridging nodes. This is more of a concern for
I2P than Tor, as I2P-only peers can only reach the bridging nodes,
whereas Tor-only peers can connect to clearnet Namecoin nodes too
(although as with Bitcoin there is the issue of exit node traffic
manipulation).
str4d
[
On 20/05/16 18:23, grarpamp wrote:
> On 4/30/16, str4d wrote:
>> On 27/04/16 22:31, grarpamp wrote:
>>> I think there are a nontrivial number of users interested in, and
>>> using, non-strictly-TCP transport over an IPv6 tunnel interface.
>>> For example, l
o that over
> anonymous overlay network Tor / I2P.
>
There is already some work on doing this in I2P:
https://github.com/majestrate/i2p-tools/tree/master/i2tun
https://github.com/majestrate/i2p-tools/tree/master/pyi2tun
I2P also natively supports non-TCP protocols if that helps (only
da
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
str4d wrote:
> Vasilios Mavroudis wrote:
>> Hello,
>
>> I would like to introduce our project "Crux", which enables the
>> computation of privacy preserving statistics on sensitive data.
>> The project wa
an I2P plugin in Java that performs
the relay role, but I wouldn't want to be duplicating a lot of logic
that subsequently needs to be kept in-sync with upstream :)
str4d
>
> Vasilis
>
>
>
> ___ tor-dev mailing
> list
g over PTs would be much easier to implement and would provide
noticeable benefits (making blanket bans much harder).
str4d
[0] http://zzz.i2p/topics/1577-ntcp2
[1] https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000151.html
[2] https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000163.html
[3]
ht
ing the same RPC protocol, as
> this creates unknown risks. As such forwarding can be done most
> safely by Tor itself, the Tor Project reserves the right to
> forward CNAME records between NameService lines in the future.
> Applications should therefore not depend upon the above
network, and it doesn't use separate rendezvous points
for individual connections between Destinations.
For high-traffic services that don't require anonymity, we generally
recommend using one-hop tunnels instead of zero-hop. This is primarily
to avoid connection limits being exceeded on t
gt; Tor, "I2PSpace/EEPSpace" for I2P etc.
I am certainly in favor of this kind of collaborative approach. It's
hard enough already trying to make this stuff understandable to end
users (usability and UX of the tools themselves aside), without having
multiple kinda-similar-but-not tools
all BitTorrent
clients on I2P are documented in [1].
str4d
[0] https://cryptocoding.net/
[1] https://geti2p.net/en/docs/applications/bittorrent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUlV4AAAoJEIA97kkaNHPnZFoP/iSsUzDBUsgApq6XC0o3TMlt
SpjTEvYkuK4xq2wLEcggu+eX7ZOTQFLPjIocIfSkkPuj4DDT0/Esyg9/Fo55B
if
everyday users are to understand it, and we need to research the
trade-offs carefully. I am happy to discuss this further if anyone is
interested, because a combined / general approach would benefit
multiple networks.
str4d
[0] https://geti2p.net/en/docs/discussions/naming
[1] htt
you need
> to write bindings or something... But better check this yourself,
> I haven't looked into Peach in years.
You could also use Jython to run tor-research-framework and use the
Java crypto in the Python code. See Jy2P [0] for an example, it uses
Jython to start the Java I2P
forking the
Orchid codebase as part of their plan to bundle it by default[3].
str4d
[0]: https://github.com/subgraph/Orchid
[1]: http://plugins.i2p.me/plugins/orchid/ (via I2P inproxy)
[2]: https://github.com/str4d/Orchid
[3]: https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/pull/28
-BEGIN PG
ires no anonymity of its own, but wants its
users to benefit).
str4d
>
> zw
>
>
>
> ___ tor-dev mailing
> list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
>
-BEGIN PGP
If there are problems with our SOCKS implementation, they can be fixed
(or implemented - I2P supports datagrams, but SOCKS UDP is not yet
implemented). For filtering, it is up to the user to decide if they
want to use a filtered SOCKSIRC tunnel or an unfiltered SOCKS tunnel,
but it should not affect to
17 matches
Mail list logo
