[tor-dev] Onioncat and Prop224
dawuud at riseup.net
Fri Sep 30 11:29:03 UTC 2016
No it's not good enough if TCP is being layered on top of TCP.
Otherwise... then yes it should be good enough. I've previously
used it with mosh which uses UDP.
Changing the subject a bit, isn't The Internet of Things
going to lead to a situation where there are even more NSA, GCHQ, BND
remotely controlled computers with microphones and other sensors all around us?
Never trust a HAL-9000! Never, ever ever.
You linked to a wikipedia article and I read it; I would suggest
being careful in declaring enemies. Certainly the cypherpunks movement
has enemies who are malicious and those who are incompetent.
In this discussion we are very very far away from "good enough".
Transparently routing ALL traffic from a computer over tor sounds like
a terrible idea! This will undoubtedly result in sending things over Tor that
you don't really want to send.
Furthermore there are language security considerations. Tor is obviously written
in C for historical reasons however if today you were to write onioncat, Tor or
other security related software in C or C++ it would be considered socially irresponsible.
Onioncat is abandoned. You are suggesting people use an abandoned C vpn/proxy.
To be clear... I'm glad Onioncat exists because it's a cool experiment.
I even implemented a twisted python onionvpn which is compatible with onioncat:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 01:55:13PM +0300, Razvan Dragomirescu wrote:
> Allow me to second that - for some applications (Internet of Things being
> the one I'm working on), the volume of data exchanged is very small, so
> there isn't much chance for packets to be lost or retransmitted. OnionCat +
> Tor simplify development immensely by giving each node a fixed IPv6
> address, even behind NAT. You no longer have to _design_ the service for
> IoT, you just run it on the node and it's immediately accessible over IPv6.
> It's not perfect in terms of network protocol encapsulation but it's "good
> enough". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good :)
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:23 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:30 AM, dawuud <dawuud at riseup.net> wrote:
> > > Are you aware of Tahoe-LAFS?
> > Don't know if they are, or if they are here, all we have is their short
> > post.
> > If they just need an insert and retrieve filestore for small user
> > bases, there are lots of choices. If they need the more global
> > and random on demand distribution properties, and even mutually
> > co-interested long term storage nature of bittorrent, that's harder.
> > Today people can use onioncat to escape IPv4 address space limitations,
> > provide UDP transport, provide configuration free on demand any node to
> > any node IP network semantics for use by existing applications.
> > Mass bittorrent / bitcoin / p2p apps over a private network such as
> > HS / eep happen to typically need and match that.
> > > Yes but then you are suggesting TCP on top of TCP via TCP/IPv6/onion/TCP.
> > Onioncat is only one extra encapsulation layer. Of course if you run tcp
> > app over onioncat instead of udp app, you have to think about that too.
> > But being the top layer, onioncat itself does not have losses, ie any
> > losses
> > come up from below.... clearnet --> tor --> ocat --> user.
> > > Do you know what happens when you get packet loss with that protocol
> > layer cake?
> > > Cascading retransmissions. Non-optimal, meaning shitty.
> > For certain applications, expecially bulk background transport, it's
> > actually
> > quite useable in practice. And people do use voice / video / irc / ssh over
> > hidden / eep services... of course there are non-optimal systemic issues
> > there. People will use what they can [tolerate].
> > > You might be able to
> > > partially solve this by using a lossy queueing Tun device/application
> > but that
> > > just makes me cringe.
> > That's pretty far beyond anywhere tor network design is
> > going anytime soon.
> > Buffering for reordering datagrams into a queue, maybe partially if the
> > user doesn't mind possible additional latency. Lossy... not in tcp layers.
> > Maybe in ideal world user would supply requirements as ifconfig
> > request to network, each interface providing different set, user
> > binds apps to interfaces as needed.
> > Sliders latency / bandwidth / loss - maybe represented as single
> > app type config param: voice, irc, bulk, torrent, network tolerant - or
> > by list of app names.
> > Or network would monitor and adapt to users traffic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tor-dev