Delivery-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:18:07 -0400
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=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID
	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 448401E08BA;
	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:18:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1AB25B25;
	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6666B25AB2
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:17:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
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 jUIrN5Jqa9Ji for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:17:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-x233.google.com (mail-vc0-x233.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B47425A99
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:17:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id im17so4695719vcb.10
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type; bh=+b6CUl05/g0fPor0ktawPyQX7zUGOIIO2mW6gJClEw8=;
 b=w74WQvWdafbYt2V7Qj68JI8/f9JG1oms8lsY4p+QTphJPpiPdRbgFgcGL52lPRE4Om
 I050si21nG0kUX3IKwMv22mJ+EGvQlYOr2U7zLFocx63Y7YxqHi/fwey/hI0dZ497HFX
 3WarSLkT0llESTieE3/2HWbZ5wADu80CTYU4tn6NRCHnOl+S9n54BrXFaePSS/oJml/b
 Jas/ylmSg9UF8LbVi/yZnr2bo3P+4QsCS9UIRzcazzhaIOab+1nTmXFud49nFav9uWNr
 wDlnbdEPkXNikzuY8y861SWwVYeBTEAvsh5whn6R3tg8f46bCZf4+wbP9r93EqHTX8DY
 K2JA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.168.210 with SMTP id v18mr28047626vcy.3.1410859059310;
 Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.64.74 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1840622.XFu94Lr8ZZ@desu>
References: <1840622.XFu94Lr8ZZ@desu>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:17:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti28MGM9rAxmq6LbMeW-=Zs8KgqHzYiBfG_CGZ7cfEoOZPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] I2P over Tor
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>

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Jeff Becker <ampernand@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Newbie I2P contributor here, I've recently been playing around with the idea
> of running I2P over Tor for purely experimental reasons. I am thinking that
> some users could still participate in routing traffic by providing a reachable
> hidden service address and optionally a publicly reachable clearnet address. I
> am pretty sure that Tor can handle a few small I2P routers but I would like to
> make sure that it will not bother the Tor network. I am unsure of how much
> bandwidth it would use, in the long run it may use a lot if people like the
> idea of I2P over/inside tor.
>
> Would this bother Tor if this was a) done on an experimental level, b) done as
> an optional mode of operation for i2p, c) default for i2p.
>
> case A is almost ready to go
> case B is a possible possibility for the future
> case C will never happen ever. Regardless, I'd like to hear thoughts on such
> systems for possible future ventures.

You could run I2P over Tor, perhaps via onion, and definitely
with onioncat. But why? Yes, layering resistance technologies
is good. But you will have no other I2P peers to connect to, for a
very long while. And it will be very slow. Same for I2P over Tor.
Now if you were to run Bittorrent or any other application layer
'network' over Tor (or I2P), IRC/NNTP/etc that would be different...
you would acquire peers fairly quickly.

Were you to ask I2P community, option 'c' will never happen.
And due to slowness as natural discouragement of 'a' and 'b',
Tor probably doesn't care since though technically possible,
it won't happen en masse anyways.
Similarly, does I2P care if Tor can route traffic over I2P?
Doubtful, but as with Bitcoin support, options in both
directions are always fun to have :)
-- 
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

