update on Tahoe/Tor/Foolscap integration

[Paul Rabahy]

It is very possible that I misinterpreted Brian's original email. If this
is the case, my apologies. If/when there is something to test, let me know
and I will be happy to bang on it for a bit.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:56 AM, David Stainton <dstainton415 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Paul Rabahy,
>
> Thanks for running the public grid so users can test out Tahoe-LAFS...
>
> Btw both you and Zooko misunderstood Brian Warner's e-mail; he doesn't
> want to take away the autodetect feature... he just wants it to not be
> the default if no listening address is specified... keyword AUTO will
> be used to specify autodetect... As Daira pointed out, this makes
> "tahoe create-note" slightly more difficult to use.
>
> On the other hand these changes will make Tahoe-LAFS way easier to use
> with Tor and other transports (I2p, ipv6 etc) who wish to run storage
> nodes at home and need the transport's NAT penetration property.
>
> I think there are political, economic and technical consequences to
> the NAT penetration method chosen... so I have this work in progress
> document to help explain some of these tradeoffs:
>
> https://github.com/telekommunisten/nat-penetration-tradeoffs
>
> It's far from complete...
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20150908/6c9c0cbb/attachment.html>