From 6b1ac31c06758c6670ebee023d0cf4862d1f1c7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: str4d
{% trans link='http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2004-March/000167.html' -%} +
{% trans link='http://web.archive.org/web/20070607220008/http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2004-March/000167.html' -%} As I've said, having I2PTunnel (and the ministreaming lib) go this route was the best thing that could be done, but more efficient mechanisms are available. When we rip out the diff --git a/i2p2www/pages/site/docs/discussions/tunnel.html b/i2p2www/pages/site/docs/discussions/tunnel.html index e8a3b5ce..bd8995b7 100644 --- a/i2p2www/pages/site/docs/discussions/tunnel.html +++ b/i2p2www/pages/site/docs/discussions/tunnel.html @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ None of these are currently implemented.
These padding strategies can be used on a variety of levels, addressing the exposure of message size information to different adversaries. After gathering -and reviewing some statistics +and reviewing some statistics from the 0.4 network, as well as exploring the anonymity tradeoffs, we're starting with a fixed tunnel message size of 1024 bytes. Within this however, the fragmented messages themselves are not padded by the tunnel at all (though for end to end