Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

Last modified 8 years ago

#2538 closed task (fixed)

Map out IPv6 challenges and possible solutions to making Tor compatible

Reported by: arma Owned by: nickm
Priority: Medium Milestone: Tor: unspecified
Component: Core Tor/Tor Version:
Severity: Keywords: tor-relay
Cc: Actual Points:
Parent ID: #2277 Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:


What's our roadmap for getting ipv6 working broadly in Tor? How can we break it down, what are intermediate points where the results are useful to users, how much time will various parts take, what are the risky points that could derail our plans, etc?

We should have a solid outline of these pieces by mid March.

Child Tickets

Change History (11)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by arma

The technical plan in a nutshell will be "first we get bridges working in an ad hoc way on ipv6, then we get bridge address lines and descriptors able to do ipv6, then we let clients ask for ipv6 destinations, which includes changes to exit policies, then we take a step back."

We'll probably also want to point out the increasing value of ipv6 support especially for censored countries.

Sebastian reminds us that we also need to consider the metrics piece of the question, such as "what is the impact on path diversity of having only x% of the relays supporting ipv6?" Along with that question we'll need a design for a "no relays support ipv6 until a switch gets flipped in the consensus" approach so we don't deploy an anonymity-risking bottleneck at the beginning.

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by nickm

Relevant proposals include 117-ipv6-exits.txt and 118-multiple-orports.txt . See also the parts of tor-spec about ipv6 that are not yet implemented. See also also the thread starting at .

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by karsten

#2541 has a list of our metrics-related software that needs to be updated for IPv6.

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by phobos

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by nickm

Roger should give that document a once-over before we call it done, but other than that, I'm happy with it.

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by arma

Looked over it and cleaned it up a bit. We'll need to make more precise plans for each of these components when we get around to actually working on them.

In the mean time, before we close this ticket, should we send the doc to or-dev so other people know it exists, and/or give it a proposal number (with status 'informative' or the like)?

comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by nickm

Hrm. We have no actual way to declare informative proposals. We could either make one, or declare that there's a new thing like proposals that isn't. (Notes? TRs?)

comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by nickm

Milestone: Deliverable-Mar2011Tor: unspecified
Owner: set to nickm
Status: newassigned

Reassigning to me. I'll turn the thing into a blog post.

comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by nickm

Resolution: fixed
Status: assignedclosed

Posted it to the blog today.

comment:10 Changed 8 years ago by nickm

Keywords: tor-relay added

comment:11 Changed 8 years ago by nickm

Component: Tor RelayTor
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.