Delivery-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:31:11 -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_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 74E791E02FC;
	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:31:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D314235E00;
	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:31:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7A635DDC
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:30:57 +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 7lsP51VZiHaQ for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:30:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83430305C8
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:30:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbbj7 with SMTP id bj7so124037001obb.1
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 03:30:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :content-type; bh=vmgEqLPpR4X04FeuAp9Su/H/EjrGlpC824rvMDEh3xg=;
 b=dPjX4y0YebYLnI4IjriP/qgzxgYzX8RkjHJIvGceeNAyGpWj5+Gt8pliv8aPwGdBdS
 s3Wj0saBHh1B9yC05hnJwV6yh++NBW7VR4lYLd6SJG+GchobnatcernPMggSLPMg8n3E
 DoNs6AuXKEvk8Nvv0+3ar3QOqohe/fEV7jIeZuKUqKOxIKParsYQVkFsauS1UrXmHAEX
 nd2aINsgHvtyW2H0kiUI+kX/oIc/lCscAzcmwO/ERX043CE2a4mTXPLSGwWdFuN9e8P0
 MddQwcCE8fx4lD76fUNSwLgB2ZCuknhoBthaZiw0UmHDV39Ccr3AHxliFxMsTe1U3vgY
 vGwA==
X-Received: by 10.182.98.138 with SMTP id ei10mr20081112obb.12.1448883055260; 
 Mon, 30 Nov 2015 03:30:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.85.196 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 03:30:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151130003152.GE3146@nymity.ch>
References: <CAPrtOHP7CGRmrcsHNc7KtSA2Cm1NJ=Af1i5CMf7y=LN3H5q2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151130003152.GE3146@nymity.ch>
From: Amin s <asgetlostman@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:00:35 +0330
Message-ID: <CAPrtOHPkFMqijanYuO0MHC7nbMKNYKwBfxXEaSYmaYBQ+rrhSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] TOR and Obfsproxy packet size
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>

Hi Philipp,

> The difference is caused by the protocol headers that are wrapped around
Tor cells;
> IP, TCP, and TLS.

How many bytes does TLS take?
if we say TOR cell is 512 bytes, then 512 + 20 (TCP) + 20 (IP) = 552 and
586 - 552 = 34 bytes for TLS. is it correct?

> How did you run your test?  543 sounds like the TCP segment length and
> not like the length of the IP packet.
> Also, obfsproxy is just a framework.  Which obfuscation protocol did you
> run?  Obfs3?

I used Obfs3.
I am using wireshark . i get the same packet size when using tcpdump. In
wireshark there are 5 layers. Application,Transport,IP,Ethernet and
physical layer. (in regular TOR) for the application layer it shows 543
bytes (probably TLS is included).
Overall packet size (including all layers) is 597 bytes [543 + 20 (TCP) +
20 (IP) + 14 (Ethernet) = 597 bytes].

According to what you said at first, if 586 bytes is for (cell + TLS + TCP
+ IP), then in my case
(cell + TLS + TCP + IP) equals to 543 + 20 + 20 = 583 bytes. There is 3
bytes difference here. Why is it so?
How about Obfs3 traffic that wireshark (tcpdump) shows 565 bytes for the
application layer? [565 + 20 (TCP) + 20 (IP) = 605 bytes]

> First, Tor has static-length and variable-length cells, so it's not
> entirely fixed.  Second, what actually ends up on the wire isn't only up
> to the tor client.  It depends on TCP, which tries to fill the link MTU
> if there's enough data in the send buffer.

Do you know when TOR uses static-length cell and when variable-length cell?
-- 
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

