[tor-dev] Onioncat and Prop224

[str4d]

On 20/05/16 18:23, grarpamp wrote:
> On 4/30/16, str4d <str4d at i2pmail.org> 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, look at users of CJDNS...
>>>
>>> For which we should try to continue a way, in v2, to do 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
>> datagrams implemented thus far).
> 
> You mean just UDP? How would you move ICMP, GRE, raw IP/packets?
> Do you have to implement each one?

I mean that I2P has a numbered protocol system (like IP protocol
numbers). Currently we only have three protocols defined: streaming (our
TCP-like protocol), repliable datagrams (our UDP-like protocol) and
non-repliable/raw datagrams (c/f raw sockets). Our higher-level APIs map
clearnet TCP data onto streaming, and clearnet UDP data onto repliable
datagrams.

> That seems more work
> than implementing a generic data conduit, or an IPv6 conduit (as
> a more specific, host stack oriented, interoperable form).
> Though yes UDP would be the most useful for people after TCP.

It is relatively easy to use repliable or raw datagrams as a conduit for
any other protocol. That's how i2tun is implemented.

str4d

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20160522/882b2e92/attachment.sig>