what may be useful is the transparent TCP proxy support in Tor for
ensuring the VPN connections are going through Tor. (VPN software
being difficult to SOCKS'ify so to speak)
Ahem... if your VPN software is using TCP rather than UDP or raw IP,
then I strongly recommend that you choose a
I have several options - what's the issue w/ using TCP?
What vendor would you suggest?
Thanks - Nd
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:14:36 -0400 Juliusz Chroboczek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what may be useful is the transparent TCP proxy support in Tor
for
ensuring the VPN connections are going
On 8/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have several options - what's the issue w/ using TCP?
TCP over TCP has some problems, the least/biggest of which is the
timeout factor.
If there is a communication problem, TCP has a back off and resend
rule. This starts with I didn't get
I have heard of the TCP over TCP issue but have not had any bad
experiences so far. I am currently using both TCP and UDP-based VPN
systems and while the TCP-based one is a bit slower, it still seems
very stable for applications such as Terminal Services, FTP,
http(s), etc.
I do notice
I may be doing a horrible job of explaining the problem.
No, you're doing fine. I'm just going to explain it differently.
IP over IP works.
UDP over UDP works if your UDP protocol supports it.
TCP over TCP fails. The timeout rules cannot stack properly.
You missed the two important cases
Robert Hogan wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 09:19:46 Olaf Selke wrote:
my OR still periodically shows up a 24 hours sawtooth bandwidth
utilization using 0.1.2.15. Regarding the dropping bandwidth every night
GMT+2 it behaves exactly like 0.1.2.14. I supposed this issue to be
fixed with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have heard of the TCP over TCP issue but have not had any bad
experiences so far. I am currently using both TCP and UDP-based VPN
systems and while the TCP-based one is a bit slower, it still seems
very stable for applications such as Terminal Services, FTP,
On 8/18/07, Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Ahem... if your VPN software is using TCP rather than UDP or raw IP,
then I strongly recommend that you choose a different VPN vendor.
that's not good advice. tcp to 443 and other uses in general are
quite acceptable. (ok, i do
Ahem... if your VPN software is using TCP rather than UDP or raw IP,
then I strongly recommend that you choose a different VPN vendor.
that's not good advice. tcp to 443 and other uses in general are
quite acceptable. (ok, i do favor AH/ESP or UDP, but TCP is still
quite usable and useful)
On 8/18/07, coderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... TCP VPN over Tor
i forgot to add:
LongLivedPorts and NEWNYM are your friends.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:04:48 -0400
Nick Mathewson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:24:26AM +0800, Li-Hui Zhou wrote:
Sorry to bother again. Several revisions
after rev. 11043, compile on win32 by
MinGW seems broken.
Error message read:
In file included from
11 matches
Mail list logo
