[tor-relays] About relay size

[teor]

> On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:54, Santiago <santiagorr at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> El 02/10/17 a las 13:19, Scott Bennett escribió:
>> grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Santiago <santiagorr at riseup.net> wrote:
>> …
>> 
>>     Huh?  What kind of ISP NATs its customers' connections?  Your ISP
>> should be assigning your machine/router a legitimate, unique IPv4 address.
>> The assignment is often, even usually, a temporary assignment via DHCP,
>> but it should not be a private address.  If NAT is a factor, that should
>> happen at the boundary of your own private network, not at an ISP's facility.
> 
> It seems that a French ISP was also planning to share an IPv4 address
> per four costumers.
> 
> …
>> ...  One typical problem with running tor
>> on a NATed machine behind such a device is that the NAT table grows until all
>> of the real memory on the device has been consumed and there is no more room
>> for new NAT entries.
> 
> I am not currently able to replace the modem/router my ISP provides. But
> I'd plan to give it away in the future.
> 
> In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
> avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.

We'd love to make this happen, but the anonymity implications
of mixed IPv4-only and IPv6-only (non-clique) networks need
further research. Search the list archives for details.

T