1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Sjftf-0001Fw-3W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:14:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.181; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sjfte-0000cT-9U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:14:15 +0000
Received: by qcpx40 with SMTP id x40so294270qcp.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.184.7 with SMTP id ci7mr26351244qab.7.1340756048854; Tue,
26 Jun 2012 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.192.201 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD2Ti2_7dc00bad0stAzYHgPG9f6Y91fYodyczTch73-psk7Sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120626141129.GA30240@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CAD2Ti2_7dc00bad0stAzYHgPG9f6Y91fYodyczTch73-psk7Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:14:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQEcNOwfw9YkN-jJZi_pb4Ex3ujY4KgWzL07=BVVknt_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Sjfte-0000cT-9U
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net,
phantom-protocol@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tor hidden service support
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:14:15 -0000
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are going to want to include the block of the Phatom project as well:
> https://code.google.com/p/phantom/
> fd00:2522:3493::/48
Perhaps some argument to add blocks to the IsRoutable check is in
order? Then people who use overlay networks that are actually
routable but which use otherwise private space can just add the
relevant blocks.
> Note that while these blocks are not expected to be routable, that
> people may in fact have interfaces, routing tables and packet filters
> on their machines configured with up to all three of those networks
> for the purposes therein.
Note that while the hidden service support in bitcoin uses a
compatible IPv6 mapping with onioncat, it is _not_ onioncat, does not
use onioncat, does not need onioncat, and wouldn't benefit from
onioncat. The onioncat style advertisement is used because our
protocol already relays IPv6 addresses. The connections are regular
tor hidden service connections, not the more-risky and low performance
ip in tcp onioncat stuff.
|
