Broadband Reports: Tor Network Bogged Down by P2P

[loki tiwaz]

hi,

i run my tor server from a connection which only has 32k/s upstream 
bandwidth, and the minimum speed demanded of tor servers makes quite a load 
on my connection. it is my opinion that there should be the option to run a 
tor node as slow as 10k/s, and this was possible until recent versions. the 
bandwidth problem will be solved if all tor clients are obliged to run nodes 
at a minimum of 10k/s imo. fair enough dialup users should not have to 
contribute anything but anyone with dsl can do 10k/s comfortably.

loki


>From: Paul Syverson <syverson at itd.nrl.navy.mil>
>Reply-To: or-talk at freehaven.net
>To: or-talk at freehaven.net
>Subject: Re: Broadband Reports: Tor Network Bogged Down by P2P
>Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:56:59 -0400
>
>On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0400, Dustin Eward wrote:
> > Roger Dingledine wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 11:15:49PM -0400, Dustin Eward wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>It's time for Tor to expand, not regulate.  And if expansions isn't
> > >>possible, just let it suck!  I can't imagine many fileshare people 
>will
> > >>cleave unto dial-up speeds with their broadband...  Once they learn 
>that
> > >>it sucks to use Tor, they'll stop.  We need knee-jerk decisions in 
>this
> > >>project like we need knee-jerk political actions...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I like this approach -- let Tor self-regulate itself because when it
> > >gets too overloaded, people will leave until it works again.
> > >
> > >There's a potential problem with it, though, when different users place
> > >different value on their time and on their security.
> > >
> > >So one failure mode would be if the filesharers care more about being
> > >anonymous than the web users. Then they'd just leave it running in the
> > >background, and not mind that it takes 6 days to download a file rather
> > >than 6 hours, because eventually it arrives.
> > >
> > >The current Tor network clearly can't sustain very many of these 
>people,
> > >but if all the web users give up first, then "let it suck" means most
> > >of our users go away.
> > >
> > >It remains to be seen whether this will happen, of course, but we're
> > >trying to come up with some useful technical approaches too. :)
> > >
> > >--Roger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I see your point, but you miss something important.  Most file-share
> > people don't leave their computers on 24x7.  When it takes this long to
> > Download stuff, they usually NEVER get it.  Most are also windows
> > users.  Their systems are flooded with spyware and general bad design;
> > they just don't have that kind of uptime.
> >
> > Even bandwidth regulation is a research concept that can have effects on
> > other aspects of Tor.  I'm not agaisnt the matter.  The greatest
> > scientific discoveries are followed by "Hey, that's weird, whoda thunk
> > it?"  They aren't planned.
> >
> > Trying to gestapo Tor into submission is kinda defeating the concept, I
> > think...  But giving it some thought could possibly teach us all how our
> > hidden services could be attacked.  Which begs the question, obviously a
> > hidden service pulls more pipe than a client; if there were no fileshare
> > people.  Couldn't you just put 10 computers on a linksys and al keep
> > repeatedly going to that hidden service, and make exposure by traffic
> > analization pretty easy?  How would bandwidth limits affect hidden 
>services?
> >
>
>For a stab at these and related questions, generally noting why they
>are hard and why the "obvious solutions" to many of them are not so
>obvious, people might want to look at the "Challenges in Low-Latency
>Anonymity" paper at http://tor.freehaven.net/documentation.html.en
>particularly the sections on file sharing and scaling.
>
>-Paul

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/