Tor in my experience. i've also had success tweaking the TCP VPN
layer (disable nagle for example, and i recall someone using cork to
benefit too).
This approach is described in RFC 1925 section 2.3.
Juliusz
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
[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.
Hi,
Question - if you are only connecting to encrypted remote resources
by IP address, do you need to use Privoxy?
Scenario: VPN client-side gateway that is pushing traffic through
Tor to a VPN server at a destination known to the VPN client by its
IP and not by DNS. Tor not being utilized
On 8/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... if you are only connecting to encrypted remote resources
by IP address, do you need to use Privoxy?
Scenario: VPN client-side gateway that is pushing traffic through
Tor to a VPN server at a destination known to the VPN client by its
Thanks coderman, I've seen that page but can't find it now - can
you shoot me a link?
- Nd
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:34:08 -0400 coderman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 8/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... if you are only connecting to encrypted remote resources
by IP address,
On 8/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... can you shoot me a link?
http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TransparentProxy
also, janusvm.peertech.org provides transparent proxy through a
virtual machine. (you'd need to configure routing through the vm if
the PPTP method
14 matches
Mail list logo
