Thus spake Adam Shostack (a...@homeport.org):
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:54:35PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> | > I think this might be the right direction. The person running Tor
> | > knows two things: if they're worried about someone monitoring their
> | > network right now, and how technical
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:54:35PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
| > I think this might be the right direction. The person running Tor
| > knows two things: if they're worried about someone monitoring their
| > network right now, and how technical they are (and their desire to tweak
| > settings).
| >
Thus spake Adam Shostack (a...@homeport.org):
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 02:09:33AM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> | Thus spake Andrew Lewman (and...@torproject.is):
>
> | > One answer is the user shouldn't care. Tor Browser should automatically
> | > loop through the various kinds of connectivity and
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:13:09PM -0400, MF Nowlan wrote:
> What you're saying about HOL blocking in the output queue for a relay makes
> sense if the receive window fills up, but I didn't explain how uTCP actually
> works. uTCP (and paired with uTLS) is a kernel patch that will expose to the
>
Yes, the initial plan is to maintain ordering within a circuit. Although, even
this is not strictly necessary if the application wishes to handle out of order
packets. For example, a web server could theoretically handle requests for
different resources in any order. But that's a different story
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 02:09:33AM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Andrew Lewman (and...@torproject.is):
>
> > On Fri, 3 May 2013 16:05:15 -0400
> > "Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree. The Tor help desk sees a ton of requests from users saying
> > > that Tor is unable to connect
Mike Perry:
> We could do this same thing to promote uncensored Tor clients to various
> types of pluggable transports.
I asked this some time ago:
"[tor-talk] anonymity: bridge users vs. entry guard users" [1]
If everyone only uses pluggable transports... That's quite an
interesting idea. You wo
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 02:09:33AM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
| Thus spake Andrew Lewman (and...@torproject.is):
| > One answer is the user shouldn't care. Tor Browser should automatically
| > loop through the various kinds of connectivity and just connect.
| > non-obfs bridges really should get who
Andrew Lewman:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 16:05:15 -0400
> "Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
>
>> I disagree. The Tor help desk sees a ton of requests from users saying
>> that Tor is unable to connect, and the simple fix is to give them a
>> bridge or two. Not all users know what they need to connect, and not
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:58:54AM -0400, MF Nowlan wrote:
> I am working on integrating uTCP and uTLS (
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0463) into Tor to see if we can lower the
> latency due to head of line blocking across circuits.
You have to be careful to preserve cell ordering *within* circuits,
Thus spake Andrew Lewman (and...@torproject.is):
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 16:05:15 -0400
> "Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
>
> > I disagree. The Tor help desk sees a ton of requests from users saying
> > that Tor is unable to connect, and the simple fix is to give them a
> > bridge or two. Not all users kn
11 matches
Mail list logo
