[tor-talk] Can NAT traversal be Tor's killer feature?

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Fri Jul 11 00:31:24 UTC 2014

On 7/11/14, Helder Ribeiro <helder at discor.de> wrote:
> tl;dr: how about a virtual global flat LAN that maps static IPs to
> onion addresses?

> Exhibit 1: Ricochet IM (https://ricochet.im) uses onion addresses
> (each client runs a hidden service) as a sort of *static anonymous IP
> address* and, because it's static, it's the user's identity too, in a
> p2p/serverless chat app. It's dead simple, works like a charm behind
> the firewall at work, and protects metadata, which no other chat
> app/protocol I know does.
> Exhibit 2: OnionShare (https://onionshare.org/) does the same for file
> sharing, and it's actually a much *easier* user experience to send
> large files this way than any other. Why? "Static anomyous IP" (onion
> address) and NAT traversal because all hidden services work by making
> *outgoing* connections to Tor relays and don't need any open ports.

Sounds good.

Excessive popularity/ usage, without measures to 'encourage' or
otherwise to automatically facilitate expansion of the network may
well lead to network degradation.

Skype super-nodes or whatever they are (were?) called, are
automatically created on nodes where Skype detected sufficient
bandwidth and no blocking firewall, AIUI. UPnP comes to mind.

More information about the tor-talk mailing list