Delivery-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:39:18 -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=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	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 AA2421E0A43;
	Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:39:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8D63152B;
	Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:39:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAB4314DA
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:39:10 +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 K56WBTOPCeRc for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:39:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::e])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80393145F
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:39:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ol168-138.fibertel.com.ar ([24.232.138.168]:32985
 helo=raiz.hellekin.gnu)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hellekin@gnu.org>) id 1XoBey-0003bd-SA
 for tor-talk@lists.torproject.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:39:05 -0500
Message-ID: <5462117A.9080302@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:39:06 -0300
From: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
Organization: https://gnu.org/consensus
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
References: <7488606.2oxgLGVBPl@ncpws04> <2394059.RZp3KPTO9L@ncpws04>
 <5460E186.7070405@gnu.org> <1682155.sfX4lsJYxo@ncpws04>
In-Reply-To: <1682155.sfX4lsJYxo@ncpws04>
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Cloak Tor Router
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 11/11/2014 06:09 AM, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> On Monday 10 November 2014 13:02:14 hellekin wrote:
>> advantages: it's free hardware, free software friendly, energy
>> efficient, more powerful than Pi and such, and made in EU, if politics
>> still matters--that means working conditions are supposed to be decent.
> 
> Not to mention only board I could find with 2 Ethernet ports :)
> 
*** I've given some thought to that.  First I thought it would be easy
for people to have two Ethernet ports, one to plug to the ISP modem, and
another to plug to the LAN router.  Two RJ45 ports are noted as a
requirement in the Dowse paper.

When I witnessed the success of the Anonabox campaign, I attributed it
partly to the fact it has 2 Ethernet ports: it's conceptually
straightforward for people to "see" a bridge with two "entries".

But now I think it would be better to explain why it's not necessary,
and how the physical world and the digital world work on two different
levels of reality.  The mindshift required to conceptualize a network
bridge with a single network interface card is about the same as to
understand that the aggregate of rational micro-decisions can generate
irrational macro-consequences.

Given a NIC with Gigabit capacity, is there an actual use-case where 2
NICs are required instead of one?

==
hk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=T6uo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
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

