https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/897-Tor-0day-Crashing-...
circuit padding client-edge padding capability already built
Neither may have much impact on a global TA adversary. Draw it on paper and start thinking like a TA, if not obvious, then drop in a cut. As before on this list... a full time base layer of fill among connected p2p nodes seems more potential for impact against TA.
someone said to tack up another N x parallel connections between the same two nodes when more bandwith desired
Such channel bonding, socket / cpu / management resources... likely N x inefficient. Renegotiate the existing connection, design it as a cell carrier from start, etc.
Hey, has anyone else ever implemented this before, and maybe had a patch rejected?
Tor eschews entertaining such models and options on their lists as Tor dislikes traffic and will not accept such a patch that alters its marketed mode of operation. Thus tor will remain 25+ year old TA vulnerable system, leaving new projects to explore various approaches to TA in a low latency net (and even make cost raising impact on Sybil). Some coders who know Tor Project is a censor rejecting topical posts and critiques, lies to its users, is infected with virtue signalling SJW, etc... might not feel comfy working them with patches either, as opposed to with a fork or some new. Edge padding, and recent not-enough-against-anti-sybil, moved forward, in some part because small number noisy people on TA/Sybil, who were more banned than noise/ideas thanked.