On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:10:15PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > And if a very few do, maybe the solution is to > > move to a new TLS connection for those rare cases, rather than impose > > a 2-byte penalty on every cell in all cases.) > > Maaaybe, but I sure can't think of a sane testable design for that. Can > you? To do this sanely, we'd need to negotiate this before we exchange any > actual data, and predict in advance that we'd want it. (We wouldn't want to > do it on-the-fly for connections that happen to have large numbers of > circuits: that way lies madness.) > > Also, I think those "rare cases" are communications between the busiest Tor > nodes. I think those communications might represent a reasonably large > fraction of total Tor bytes, such that having a fallback mode might not > save us so much.
Ah. By "a new TLS connection", I didn't mean a new design or anything -- I meant simply a second TLS connection. > And also, this only adds 1/256 additonal overhead before TLS happens. Not > huge IMO. We could save far more than that by more intelligent TLS use, if > we needed to. I agree that it's an ok price to pay if we decide it's the best way to go. --Roger _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
