On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 9:17 PM, intrigeri
<intrigeri@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
hhhh xhdhx wrote (18 Dec 2010 15:25:01 GMT) :
> Im quite ignorant abt onioncat.
It is worth reading about. It makes easy some things that would
otherwise be pretty hard.
> How was user authentication done in the onioncat+mumble
> combination ??
During preliminary testing we purely relied on communicating the
hidden services names (that map to OnionCat IPv6 addresses) in a
properly authenticated manner.
Is the mapping handled de-centrally ? , pls correct me if im wrong .
> Reading on mumble says its been optimised for low latency , does
> that explain the lag ?
No idea.
> Mumble has a client / server architecture so was the server run as a
> hidden service & the clients just spoke to the hidden service
> through tor ??
Nope: every client publishes a hidden service and has it mapped to an
OnionCat IPv6 address. Then they can talk to each other with no need
for a central server at all.
That makes more sense.
> The torchat architecture seems decentralised to me as every
> participant is a hidden service himself & there is no single point
> of failure. Most voip clients hav a client/server model which im
> very keen to avoid.
OnionCat + Mumble does not fall into this "most VoIP clients"
category.
| Did you exchange a walk on part in the war
| for a lead role in the cage?