OnionCat 0.1.9 now supports IPv4

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Monday 15 September 2008, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> > On Monday 15 September 2008, Sven Anderson wrote:
> >> Am 15.09.2008 um 16:16 schrieb Bernhard Fischer:
> >>> We have a new version of OnionCat ready which is now capable of
> >>> IPv4-forwarding.
> >>>
> >>> Read http://www.abenteuerland.at/onioncat/ for further instructions
> >>> on how to
> >>> use OnionCat and IP.
> >>
> >> Does it really work in an acceptable way? I ask because "TCP Over TCP
> >> Is A Bad Idea"[1]. I would expect it to have an awful performance.
> >>
> >> [1] http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/tcp-tcp.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sven
> >
> > What somebody would define as "acceptable" may be different but basically
> > your concern about it is right.
> >
> > TCP over TCP is an issue which has some kind of "rubber-band" effects on
> > the packet transmission but that's a problem that share all kinds of
> > VPNs. Hopefully TOR will work with UDP eventually because in respect to
> > performance this would give lower latencies in my opinion and would also
> > make OnionCat more powerful.
> >
> > Specifically with TOR and OnionCat the rubber-band effect can even be
> > observed when sending pings over OnionCat (and that's ICMP over TCP ;).
> > I'm not sure but I think that's because of the numerous concatenated TCP
> > sessions that TOR circuits are built of.
> >
> > But the real biggest problem currently is the bad performance of hidden
> > services in general which overlays all other difficulties.
> >
> > The advantage of OnionCat is its IP-transparency and together with TOR it
> > is location hidden. If someone wants or needs to use hidden services he
> > will also use OnionCat, there's not really a difference in performace.
> >
> > Bernhard
>
> Is there a performance difference between IPv4 and IPv6 (TCP over TCP)?
> I'd presume none; and I'd also presume that a UDP vpn would work fine.
>
> (Thanks for developing OnionCat!)

No, there's no difference. It's more or less the same code.
As I wrote before UDP would perform better but I have no influence on that -- 
TOR is based on TCP.

Bernhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20080915/f8f503c9/attachment.pgp>