Delivery-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:14:18 -0500
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C3C1E0E16;
	Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:14:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD7238D03;
	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:14:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0568138C6B
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:14:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id sNDcYewdBaJj for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:14:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.ud03.udmedia.de (ud03.udmedia.de [194.117.254.43])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "root.udmedia.de",
 Issuer "StartCom Class 3 Primary Intermediate Server CA" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D08F38CDD
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:14:08 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h=
 subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version
 :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=
 IjuqvAUCzz9E8aajfqQ4IZgpwt+QKVzUJhke82L0SdQ=; b=GNs4b67gaDj+vYZQ
 Vt8XKtGUK8VoCHZSHG7EARSByI+PaR0lQHsdtQri4X32CBn4nZ5wXIwy5ctLwLSK
 6hDPUAXkp3tL32uQORGP+te1ca0Vtdp9UfQ5zFBz6etllnCSEwEpjvXpY8QPZC4J
 rCdra7FP+N+RUG3WIJ4lU5M9gPQ=
Received: (qmail 28901 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2016 01:14:04 +0100
Received: from hsi-kbw-37-209-85-196.hsi15.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de (HELO
 ?10.0.0.102?) (ud03?291p1@37.209.85.196)
 by mail.ud03.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted,
 authenticated); 18 Jan 2016 01:14:04 +0100
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
References: <CAAstKWCnHJEtm6Ujvfqjupez0rEo0wU8z3PAGX6yRf0UQqzQEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Markus Hitter <mah@jump-ing.de>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <569C2E4B.9070206@jump-ing.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:14:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAstKWCnHJEtm6Ujvfqjupez0rEo0wU8z3PAGX6yRf0UQqzQEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] transparent tor routers
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

Am 18.01.2016 um 00:10 schrieb Christian St=F6veken:
> The question was whether the tor project would be interested in gaining
> these
> new users or not and also about the impact of an increase e.g. 1000 or mo=
re
> of these
> boxes (users) would have on the tor network.

A few points come to mind:

- AFAIK it's true, the more boxes there are, the safer the network is.

- Typical ISP plans have ridiculously low upstream rates, at least here
in Germany. For example a popular DSL contract is 16 Mbit downstream,
but only 1 Mbit upstream. To operate a relay or gateway the lower of
both numbers matters, so one can offer only one Mbit.

- The Tor network carries data about all network connected relays and
gateways around, so the more boxes there are, the bigger this chunk
gets. At some point such boxes (their upload bandwidth) are exhausted
with just this maintenance stuff. Not sure where this point is, also
found no related investigations.

- Why do you see a need for dedicated hardware? An off the shelf router
running OpenWRT works just fine. Install the tor package, edit torrc and
it works. I run such a thing (TP-Link WDR3600) and have no reason to
think hardware couldn't keep up with the required computing. Caveat: I'm
not aware of a tool to test computing demands either, I just see free
RAM, free 'disk' and only 5% load.

- One thing is indeed missing: up to date Tor packages for OpenWRT.
Their current stable release comes with Tor 0.2.5.12, several versions
behind what the Tor project offers.


In case you want to have a look (my plan is 20/1 Mbit cable):
https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/C1B80BA2D97C33851DE08FD061F531A1297059=
88

Did an upgrade on Jan 4th and forgot to backup the keys, so data
currently goes only 2 weeks back. Graphs weren't much better with the
previous keys, over a whole year only 2 or 3 days actually forwarding
some TCP packages.


Markus

-- =

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
-- =

tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

