On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:23:45AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
Just got word, Enigmabox has published source and put up first documentation on http://wiki.enigmabox.net/
This is cjdns. Last I checked (and will again) I'm pretty sure they
Yes. If people are not familiar with cjdns, here's a good intro https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/doc/Whitepaper.md
were using an IPv6 address scheme that would conflict with other projects using proper private space. So if say you wanted
I've asked about this a while back among a few IPv6 people, and it does not seem to be a problem. The keys/addresses are randomly generated and are all in FC00::/8.
to run an interface for each project and run/access/route them all at once, you can't. Yes, less than 128bits (say a /48) is pretty weak... but when you can't interoperate [1]
120 bits is a lot of space.
that leaves something to be said for each project to develop an address layer so you can. There certainly won't ever be more than 2^48 projects or 2^80 users.
The undernets are getting bigger and having more projects. They might want to be thinking about interop beforehand. Otherwise, even though the tech under the hood might be different, to the user they will appear as bunch of balkanized communities, and a real pain to use any of them in parallel.
cjdns interoperates fine with dual-stack. The interesting part is L2 routing over own infrastructure, and eventual ASIC/FPGAfication of the router.
[1] Click on a link to service on any net from a page on any net and let your host do the routing to get you there. Where any net = i2p/tor/freenet/phantom/cjdns/anonet/gnunet/etc. At least four of these do have some IPv6 route capability, but I thnk only a couple work together reasonably well.