Michiel van der Vlist wrote:

 MvdV> It is my considered opinion that the ship of Fidonet is on collision
 MvdV> course with an iceberg. There is no reason for panic, there is enough
 MvdV> time for a change of course. But denial is not a good strategy at
 MvdV> this point.

And I thought Fidonet is already dead in the water ;).

Fidonet did run over POTS. Nodes will always find ways to connect, that's part
of the hobby. I don't see any dangerous icebergs.

 OT>> My parents switched from Telekom (6 Mbit/s) to Innogy (50+
 OT>> Mbit/s). The new one uses an IP from the 100.64.0.0/64 range.

 MvdV> And no Ipv6? Then you are on a maimed internet connection.

It should be illegal :).

 OT>> First I didn't know that these are non-public IP addresses and
 OT>> wondered why port forwarding in the router didn't work.

 MvdV> You were nodelisted over 20 years ago, so you are no longer a
 MvdV> teenager. I am not going to ask you why you depend on the Internet
 MvdV> connection of your parents.

I don't and I can't, we live in different cities. I was visiting them and and
had free time to install Fido software on my Raspberry Pi. It was just an
example for a provider that neither offers proper IPv4 nor IPv6 connectivity
(at the moment).

 MvdV> In the late seventees my life took a turn for the worse. I moved in
 MvdV> with my parents for about a year. Fidonet did not exist yet, but
 MvdV> modems were coming and I was already experimenting with them. To not
 MvdV> be dependant on my parents in everything, I made sure I had my own
 MvdV> telephone line. Just saying...

Please don't jump to conclusions about others too fast. I will not tell much
about my private life in Fidonet while the psychopaths lurking in the
background.

 MvdV> But... IPv6 addresses are free. New ISPs offering no IPv6 are doing
 MvdV> something wrong.

True

 MvdV>>> Binkd already has build in encryption...

 OT>> Not really secure.

 MvdV> It does not bother me.

 MvdV> However... for those interested in encryption:

 MvdV> 1) Mandatory implementation of IPsec is part of the IPv6 specs. IPsec
 MvdV> includes encryption pf the packet payload. So with IPv6 you can have
 MvdV> encryption without messing with the implemantation layer.

Nobody understands IPsec ;)

 MvdV> 2) In Fidonet I have used encryption on the message level. This I
 MvdV> find much more useful than TLS or other session level encryption.
 MvdV> Only end to end encryption on the message level protects against nosy
 MvdV> sysops reading in transit routed netmail.

You are right, we should not forget e2e message encryption, but it doesn't
protect the metadata.

 MvdV> When Fidonet netmail still heavily depended on routing, there was a
 MvdV> lot of resistance against routing encrypted mail. Hence the ENC flag.
 MvdV> I have been carrying it from day one.

+1

 MvdV> My definition of "universal connectivity" is that every node can
 MvdV> connect to every other node. That implies a common protocol for every
 MvdV> sender-receiver pair.

I don't have any doubt that most nodes will connect over IPv6 in the future,
but alternative transports were always part of Fidonet.

 MvdV> I don't think connections over TOR or similar will ever become a wide
 MvdV> spread method of connection in Fidonet. For a variety of reasons...

Most likely not in Fidonet, but maybe in some othernets. People are already
using zerotier.

---