This article focuses on the transport-layer design, not a torrent client replacement. The goal is to provide a reusable IPv6-native P2P connection layer (QUIC-based, NAT-free) that existing clients or new applications can integrate without touching their higher-level logic.
Feedback on design trade-offs is very welcome.
The project is very impressive, as is https://github.com/TheusHen/ternary-ibex and having papers: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5055-5884
What's the education path for a 14 year old that does this stuff?
Most of what I know comes from self-study, experimentation, reading documentation, breaking things, and rebuilding them. I usually learn by doing projects rather than following a fixed curriculum. As for papers, I mostly write by organizing ideas that come to my head and then grounding them with research and practical knowledge. Lately, I’ve been considering writing one about implantable RFID microchips, just to explore the topic more deeply.
Would it be possible to use a dozen of IPv6 addresses at the same time? Like send one UDP packet over certain IPv6 interface, next packet over another IPv6 interface, and so on. If both sending and receiving end have access to multiple IPv6 addresses I can see how this significantly increases complexity for tracking.
Could you split up the traffic across dozens or hundreds of IPv6 source addresses?
I feel this would create significant struggles for any surveillance software because most firewalls I know are modeled on a source address / target address basis.
If you have access to enough source IPv6 addresses you might even put your whole wireguard traffic into ICMP packet payload?
What is ND? Do you have a link with details?
What I'd like to have is a single service dynamically using many network interfaces with randomized packet timings and randomized packet scheduling (5 packets on first interface, pause on 2nd, some on third interface, sometimes send traffic simultaneously).
Yes
> I can see how this significantly increases complexity for tracking
Not really. You just track at some prefix level. In general, the ISP will hand out a /64 per consumer so that's what you can track. From there, you can build more complex and more precise grouping rules for tracking.
In theory I could rent an IPv4 /29 (of which 6 addresses are usable) for like 20 euros a month from my home ISP to cause the same confusion but I doubt it'd confuse trackers to use those.
Re: renaming all the prefixes, that's why I use a ULA within my home network. Not as useful if you want your services available from the outside if you move ISPs (NAT66 can help on the inside but you'd still need to update all DNS records to use the new prefix). I'll stick with my ULA + VPN fallback for now, I don't expect the prefix to change more than once every five or six years.
If you want a static prefix with a changing prefix, you're probably better off with getting a Hurricane Electric tunnel. Or if you want to go hard on the IPv6 homelab hobby, get your personal IPv6 address space and a bring-your-own-IP business ISP.
Regardless, my point is that allocations narrower than /64 exist in the wild for better or worse. So do IPv6 NAT implementations for that matter. If you assume either of those things don't exist then you might be in for a surprise.
I realize it's intended to be an unsupported edge case but I'm curious. What happens in the event a NAT is present along the IPv6 network path? Do you just forward a port the same as you would with the various IPv4 solutions and move on? Or does it break catastrophically? Something else?