> I mean, most overlays out there are NOT for anonymity Not for strong anonymity at least. Many are closes source windows blobs and generally weighted towards filesharing and vague vpn privacy claims. Those are definitely the ones to avoid. If you can't see and change the code it's not worth one bit of your time beyond cataloging it's 'features' for possible reimplementation.
> Sure, i2P exists, but who wants to spin up a huge honking java virtual > machine just to participate in that relay pool? It's actually pretty easy and can run on modest hardware as a node. > Not only that, but i2P (last I checked) does not support IPv6 Eepsites, > while Tor is (slowly) getting to that point. Neither do, and neither are. You can shim both with onioncat to some caveated win. > IPv6 eepsites/hidden services is an important feature to me. Absolutely. > GNUnet or even more obscure overlays do not have stable featuresets > regarding generic unmodified TCP or UDP services, be it over IPv4 or IPv6. Phantom does this completely already, but is even more obscure. > Sure GNUnet has IPv6 private VPNs on the eventual roadmap, and sure you > could extend that to virtual interfaces, and sure you could enable linux or > whatever to act as a router between those interfaces, you could even enable > Quagga or whatever to swap an (alternative) BGP peering table, but GNUnet > has a lot of other priorities, and isn't likely to get around to that On the IPv6 interop front, the only thing these projects need to code is unique address in specific /48 bound to an IPv6 interface and mapped to internal 80bit address [sub]space for transport. User will setup all those interconnects. There are projects in the works... _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
