On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:45:46PM +0100, Nico Galoppo wrote: <snip> > How did you forsee linking both together? Would it be as easy as having > nodes running both servers on different ports? And what are your > thoughts on the added degree of anonimity it would offer? > > Please have a look at the concerning thread on freenet-tech > ([freenet-tech] improving anonimity through pipenet frontend) for more > thoughts. > > We could help in setting up tests, but we need guidance ;-) > > --nico I don't know too much about the internals of Freenet (none, actually ;).
I haven't yet decided how exactly AnonNet will handle channel requests from outside (i.e. from a client). I want to keep it simple. The simplest would be a client connecting and just sending the location (address and port) of the server it wants to tunnel to, and then reading a response, success or failure. There will be more to this, but this will probably be the minimum exchange necessary, more-or-less. This also fits well with my want of using a socks4/5 server as the entry into the anonymizing network. So, w/ regards to Freenet, then I would envision seeing Freenet connecting to an AnonNet server (w/ sockets or named-pipes) on a local or remote server, requesting a connection (either w/ an AnonNet defined protocol, or as a socks4/5 or http proxy, and then proceeding as usual. Now, given that AnonNet implements traffic padding, I decided to fix a single channel's flow at 28.8Kb in each direction, which ends up being only about < 14.4Kb of data throughput in each direction because of insane overhead for each packet. There will be channel bonding, so the AnonNet specific protocol will allow for bonding requests (for instance, give me a circuit of 3 channels). A socks proxy might use heuristics to do this, since the bonding will be dynamic, i.e. circuits can be built-out w/ more channels in real-time. I don't know what the latency will be like. I imagine it won't be all that great with bonded channels, so there will be a throughput/latency trade-off. Once my day-work slows down some, I'll be able to give it a try. IDeally, the latency and throughput troubles would be alleviated by intelligent node chaining. That is, the node discovery system will include scoring of node characteristics, and this info would be used in choosing how to chain nodes. But, that is def a long way off. And of course, intelligent node discovery certainly devalues the anonymity characteristics, since it reduces the possible routes that will be created. anyhow, that's about it. if other people want to start suggesting more, please do! ;) _______________________________________________ freenet-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
