[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Our nameless project.
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Our nameless project.
- From: [email protected] (danimoth)
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:43:09 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CACZmauccLAMgtmg-G0bwdhVZJtyxbS=dOVq8=cz1tKKPRBfFQg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CACZmauccLAMgtmg-G0bwdhVZJtyxbS=dOVq8=cz1tKKPRBfFQg@mail.gmail.com>
On 31/05/14 at 02:14pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 1:24 PM, davidroman96 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > For the "POC" we are using UDP. UDP only can send small packets of
> > ~64kb, therefore, it can be used for a chat but is too slow to download
> > big files. We have sacrified speed to increase anonymity and privacity.
> > We have "tested" it in a small group of people and for this reason we
> > can not say if it works or not, but in theory it works!
> >
>
>"tested"? Any source code to show?
I missed that part completely. What does it mean that "UDP is too slow
because of packet size of 64 kb" ? To me, it seems an ugly claim.
Do you know that ethernet will fragment it in pieces of ~1 kb, and the
most common segment size on the Internet is around 500 bytes ?
TCP maximum segment size is also 16 bit long.. Your proposal requires
a modification of the most transport protocols of the internet, and
IPv6 with jumbo frames?
Really, take a look onto DC nets, they are quite old but far superior to
your proposal (but they have some drawbacks).
I see too much approximation, I'm sorry.