From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com ([209.85.128.50]) by ewsd; Thu Sep 26 07:37:19 EDT 2019
Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id b24so2191399wmj.5
        for <9front@9front.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=QmcWoSwsCk0yCvp3l+JREjFw0pRebDWJjE2Et4Y0VuI=;
        b=OQMRFnnOTEWWUmmYRNsokCasfgf+gbEZPx8wVT+VlwJmOnUulQsmcELyBtOhrTKKBL
         fAfGxRqgAHGdW2Eb+fIah9W/s6a66SiKhSrmG2qf+HMQ7+9aM5odjhHicB4zGJ9X8vyX
         dDrqzvrJVOkChhweewGijCrr8OI7HbkE2UEhxpcBueJBb1C20YXGTt88atnVVl/CRjnn
         HQoOeHyZd0khxB1U2XMjUzgR3F+0/9cnOw7eWuPQGzU5N2gzcH/qbaXBLtOPrCkqS7CK
         2Kg8xGpdV0u2KNkK11IXb+RI+5i9CV4Q+ZUScXy75rf3HUrvPYgvNQ2mkO+SDaMCcTvY
         A3xA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=QmcWoSwsCk0yCvp3l+JREjFw0pRebDWJjE2Et4Y0VuI=;
        b=QyZ0ukLwTOsJOLKKaUy2Bx1qAyWGTbHfOtkCSa9tfdzVhodu5yxSJrI/vNgy5O/SNK
         dh3Ts/X7PNSdIxzQ9hq1nCzYMX2y5QSHtnQ8zkzUFgz91pQuLj4SL2xaX12ISYIQnjsm
         c6lx25LGWah6e/F98+H2TPZDWNT5zKZu6AyGKFQjDIh9aFYLjhKBQKJtfOEk22+swggT
         g2if9bYjAht1FAsI3jh6zOO+wLBf3vaM9kS/0M4oaNnj1RSNwNoI1VknENYLL7dLga6N
         7SycRAPjyzp4Un1X/RgXDJCqVZYINqyCRFeDPsK6HDuEtAM6fvIN0IrxzVjIDFqOtmUQ
         niSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWE6+Vy+fdQXQpvbSlFrHlAf9f/5UbxRAN3k7vFFtoRYmFCC21o
	Qy5yP7H5KW7VNE30JL273bOdmbIiAvwhKxQlo83BHA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFyUSEqTRhyvMq/CI4LMzSNijsGvAsY2gOWc/I6k1iRNXWY2KWxT4Mqwm0lIQn/mxmkrQZQf4T6FL+5ttiR6E=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c949:: with SMTP id i9mr2431999wml.136.1569497835485;
 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a5d:45d0:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:37:14
 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <057711B3A1307F063348E49362834324@a-b.xyz>
References: <057711B3A1307F063348E49362834324@a-b.xyz>
From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:37:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFSF3XMAJfONDZDANn7LTHiEqwqZgPRJCiOOqdeOQrOx08XN4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9front] tinc vs import
To: 9front@9front.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: session hardware package 

tinc has the latency benefit, but the bandwidth is kinda limited. i
haven't tested a /net import on the same setup, but i expect that
total bandwidth (with many parallel connections) can eclipse the one
of tinc. especially on low-latency >=1gbit networks that you share
with multiple users.
if plain throughput is more important to you i would recommend against tinc.

personally i use tinc to create n:n networks with n:n routing over the
public internet while using one shared private IPv4 address (/16)
namespace. one /24 per site/uplink.

this helps me mainly with administration tasks, when i have to access
any machine on any site, cause i don't have to manually select a proxy
first.

also, because web browsers are so slow no user noticed that everything
is theoretically throttled by going through one single tinc thread.