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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net,
	phantom-protocol@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tor hidden service support
Precedence: list

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.