[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scalability and fairness [was: P2P over Tor [was: Anomos - anonBT]]
- To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Scalability and fairness [was: P2P over Tor [was: Anomos - anonBT]]
- From: coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:49:14 -0800
- Cc: or-talk@xxxxxxxx, or-dev@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:49:31 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9kHdWB1aOUIc8EQsBydb9JAk0ewYVOSnlELX7TSff40=; b=pCR4OfmR4djQvr+3sb6eaK9wV+5B5xSAM7vahS3vnx07xEirtxG2Tqt2uz4u8Snw3Y sKhjX/FTh2gaF3W5ky4nvXtVn66jk6h13Eh0K1IvQj6RaskdgHvuFeF62AsGg+NSVpGU 1J9jkzJgTJ4s/z/aJD80PP6Qes9j8SVgV6k30=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=jzPwnDQYmGd0s+LuSAQvsCNoLTQv20QvgwIekbMKtLIPZwJcFidRs0vGGh04fvNYeJ jQapoN9xEDmQGu2QOmVM5UAUMTHmYsYp1RuQo8fYXgl2Ptwu8rxXstPeKnoiAwlHh0Y/ ZuK2z2dhOB/um3yHLF3ZnXSDoMbMlMB6G1j0I=
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> So long as users are covering their bandwidth with giveback [1], I
> think it's safe to assume the rest of their overhead is also covered
> by the addition of that node to the network.
there's always a catch. ;)
> ...
> [1] It's already established that in order for your use of Tor
> bandwidth to be zero sum (in the Hidden Service <--> Hidden Service
> case) you need to give back at least 6x your use. So you will already
> be running said relay (for the purpose of bandwidth giveback).
>
> [2] Isn't there a proposal out there to better handle magnitudes
> more users [and avoid shutdown points] by getting rid of the
> directories and self-hosting the TorNet into a DHT or something?
Tor would become something else, perhaps UDP Tor.
there has been more written on that subject than i can do justice
here. i'm fond of DTLS signalling for encapsulated IPsec telescopes
with SFQ and DLP transport for multi-homed SCTP endpoints, but that is
just one of many possibilities.
a grand unified datagram Tor spec has yet to be written...
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/