[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is this for real?
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Is this for real?
- From: "Stian Øvrevåge" <sovrevage@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:30:56 +0200
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:31:07 -0400
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r/3Hj9gdQw92Acx9QNuF2nYyFzhMPOEFNLZoslZzCoEhYs9qhR463qPOZ4XN5HhR/olLP1T/meWYKWm0T49vSFHW2Q6r0j3btzoGj32aWh4CxBkah6wqIHm5M1eWkTRVnLIE35hKRwf8y9WdU6BYc56j0kn6lM5LCwMVjtOW4nM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=A56/tyHXsQSaHFiZACl2kpnwCPmep3w1DGugBy4O3zhUut4JJJ6m5/uhC7PeBfAcgIFYxVEMo/xOBhTTtLlAHH0MTNM7YcAHpsdf6VSNzr/CEpX/hk+6+zyL4S0CzBE89+VazNue5IqiLHHmGsIsBY5N9IdChamhUI5fppmRGFU=
- In-reply-to: <461CA651.email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <460E6351.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <460E66B5.email@example.com> <460E68F9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <460E6AFB.email@example.com> <460E6FE5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <460E74F2.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <461CA651.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 4/11/07, Thomas M. Jett <free_dixie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Quick question then, *how* much bandwidth is required to run Tor as a
server, or router? I've only recently upgraded to DSL light (can't
afford full DSL, and I don't remember the advertised bandwidth, but
using my ISP's bandwidth test it shows 118.6 kbps with a maximum
download speed of 14.83 kbps). Now I'm sure full DSL has more than
enough bandwidth, but as far as DSL light goes, I'm not sure.
Wouldn't be that much of a concern except for the fact that I do quiet
a bit of downloading and I don't know how much of an effect that will
have on performance. I know you can limit the bandwidth in the torrc
file, but if it's going to be cutting it very close it may not be that
much of a help.
| if every Tor user was a router these kind of concerns wouldn't even pop
| up. Who cares if the NSA is running a few routers in a pool of 300 000.
| More and more people are stopping to use Tor because surfing has become
| unbearbly slow. Just doesn't scale. Every Tor user must also be a router
| and it scales 1:1!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The problem is that it does not scale 1:1.
If you set aside the biggest problems:
- Users with firewalls/NAT routers and lack of knowhow to set them up correctly.
- Increased use increases incentives for the bad guys, _especially_ if
a vulnerability is discovered. Everyone would be vulnerable.
- Anonymous users can simply be port-sweeped (and/or banner-scanned) for.
The reason it does not scale 1:1 is that (in EU at least),
Internet-access to the users are provided mostly asymmetrically. My
new connection has an awesome 20Mbit downstream, and the whole of
1Mbit upstream. Even with the fastest (consumer) subscription I'm not
able to host a TOR server if I'm also going to use other services
And I wouldn't approve of the whole forcing-people either, at least by
my own moral standards, especially not in a freedom-project like this!