On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 13:46 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On 06/29/2011 01:35 PM, Ted Smith wrote: > > Any time two programs running on FreedomBoxes are talking to each other, > > there's very little reason not to use Tor. It only makes sense not to > > use Tor if there's no way to anonymize the protocol, in cases like > > BitTorrent, or if there's way too much bandwidth required for Tor to > > provide, like video streaming. > > Other reasons to not use tor for certain workloads/environments: > > * you're not on an IPv4 network (tor only supports IPv4 at the moment, > iiuc) > > * your protocol uses UDP or something else other than TCP (tor only > does TCP at the moment, iiuc) >
An AF-independence patch just landed in Tor's main repo, so IPv6 should be here Real Soon Now. I don't think there's any plan on supporting anything other than well-formed TCP streams. > * you have tight latency constraints (not just throughput). For > example, the subjective experience of telephone calls is severely > degraded by even a 150ms lag, even if the throughput is minimal. Tor's > extra hops add to the latency of any circuit. > > --dkg Tor is pretty good with throughput, but does poorly on latency. I don't think I communicated that well.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
