[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-bugs] #25592 [Obfuscation/Snowflake]: Consider webrtc<-->webrtc vs webrtc<-->websocket for the browser proxy

#25592: Consider webrtc<-->webrtc vs webrtc<-->websocket for the browser proxy
-----------------------------------+------------------------
 Reporter:  arlolra                |          Owner:  (none)
     Type:  defect                 |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium                 |      Milestone:
Component:  Obfuscation/Snowflake  |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                 |     Resolution:
 Keywords:                         |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                         |         Points:
 Reviewer:                         |        Sponsor:
-----------------------------------+------------------------

Comment (by dcf):

 In my opinion, WebSocket wins for simplicity and robustness. I don't know
 why WebRTC would have higher performance either (but I haven't tried it).
 Even WebRTC has to do a DTLS handshake, you still have overhead there.

 With a WebSocket bridge, the issue of Cgo and threads doesn't come up. We
 only use Cgo on the client, which doesn't have to scale very much. The
 proxies are running in browsers, no Cgo there. (proxy-go is another story,
 but that's orthogonal to the protocol used for the proxy–bridge link.) And
 the WebSocket bridge is essentially just an HTTPS server, like meek-
 server, which scales pretty well.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25592#comment:1>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online

_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs