path-spec.txt 28 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630
  1. Tor Path Specification
  2. Roger Dingledine
  3. Nick Mathewson
  4. Note: This is an attempt to specify Tor as currently implemented. Future
  5. versions of Tor will implement improved algorithms.
  6. This document tries to cover how Tor chooses to build circuits and assign
  7. streams to circuits. Other implementations MAY take other approaches, but
  8. implementors should be aware of the anonymity and load-balancing implications
  9. of their choices.
  10. THIS SPEC ISN'T DONE YET.
  11. 1. General operation
  12. Tor begins building circuits as soon as it has enough directory
  13. information to do so (see section 5 of dir-spec.txt). Some circuits are
  14. built preemptively because we expect to need them later (for user
  15. traffic), and some are built because of immediate need (for user traffic
  16. that no current circuit can handle, for testing the network or our
  17. reachability, and so on).
  18. When a client application creates a new stream (by opening a SOCKS
  19. connection or launching a resolve request), we attach it to an appropriate
  20. open circuit if one exists, or wait if an appropriate circuit is
  21. in-progress. We launch a new circuit only
  22. if no current circuit can handle the request. We rotate circuits over
  23. time to avoid some profiling attacks.
  24. To build a circuit, we choose all the nodes we want to use, and then
  25. construct the circuit. Sometimes, when we want a circuit that ends at a
  26. given hop, and we have an appropriate unused circuit, we "cannibalize" the
  27. existing circuit and extend it to the new terminus.
  28. These processes are described in more detail below.
  29. This document describes Tor's automatic path selection logic only; path
  30. selection can be overridden by a controller (with the EXTENDCIRCUIT and
  31. ATTACHSTREAM commands). Paths constructed through these means may
  32. violate some constraints given below.
  33. 1.1. Terminology
  34. A "path" is an ordered sequence of nodes, not yet built as a circuit.
  35. A "clean" circuit is one that has not yet been used for any traffic.
  36. A "fast" or "stable" or "valid" node is one that has the 'Fast' or
  37. 'Stable' or 'Valid' flag
  38. set respectively, based on our current directory information. A "fast"
  39. or "stable" circuit is one consisting only of "fast" or "stable" nodes.
  40. In an "exit" circuit, the final node is chosen based on waiting stream
  41. requests if any, and in any case it avoids nodes with exit policy of
  42. "reject *:*". An "internal" circuit, on the other hand, is one where
  43. the final node is chosen just like a middle node (ignoring its exit
  44. policy).
  45. A "request" is a client-side stream or DNS resolve that needs to be
  46. served by a circuit.
  47. A "pending" circuit is one that we have started to build, but which has
  48. not yet completed.
  49. A circuit or path "supports" a request if it is okay to use the
  50. circuit/path to fulfill the request, according to the rules given below.
  51. A circuit or path "might support" a request if some aspect of the request
  52. is unknown (usually its target IP), but we believe the path probably
  53. supports the request according to the rules given below.
  54. 1.1. A server's bandwidth
  55. Old versions of Tor did not report bandwidths in network status
  56. documents, so clients had to learn them from the routers' advertised
  57. server descriptors.
  58. For versions of Tor prior to 0.2.1.17-rc, everywhere below where we
  59. refer to a server's "bandwidth", we mean its clipped advertised
  60. bandwidth, computed by taking the smaller of the 'rate' and
  61. 'observed' arguments to the "bandwidth" element in the server's
  62. descriptor. If a router's advertised bandwidth is greater than
  63. MAX_BELIEVABLE_BANDWIDTH (currently 10 MB/s), we clipped to that
  64. value.
  65. For more recent versions of Tor, we take the bandwidth value declared
  66. in the consensus, and fall back to the clipped advertised bandwidth
  67. only if the consensus does not have bandwidths listed.
  68. 2. Building circuits
  69. 2.1. When we build
  70. 2.1.1. Clients build circuits preemptively
  71. When running as a client, Tor tries to maintain at least a certain
  72. number of clean circuits, so that new streams can be handled
  73. quickly. To increase the likelihood of success, Tor tries to
  74. predict what circuits will be useful by choosing from among nodes
  75. that support the ports we have used in the recent past (by default
  76. one hour). Specifically, on startup Tor tries to maintain one clean
  77. fast exit circuit that allows connections to port 80, and at least
  78. two fast clean stable internal circuits in case we get a resolve
  79. request or hidden service request (at least three if we _run_ a
  80. hidden service).
  81. After that, Tor will adapt the circuits that it preemptively builds
  82. based on the requests it sees from the user: it tries to have two fast
  83. clean exit circuits available for every port seen within the past hour
  84. (each circuit can be adequate for many predicted ports -- it doesn't
  85. need two separate circuits for each port), and it tries to have the
  86. above internal circuits available if we've seen resolves or hidden
  87. service activity within the past hour. If there are 12 or more clean
  88. circuits open, it doesn't open more even if it has more predictions.
  89. Only stable circuits can "cover" a port that is listed in the
  90. LongLivedPorts config option. Similarly, hidden service requests
  91. to ports listed in LongLivedPorts make us create stable internal
  92. circuits.
  93. Note that if there are no requests from the user for an hour, Tor
  94. will predict no use and build no preemptive circuits.
  95. The Tor client SHOULD NOT store its list of predicted requests to a
  96. persistent medium.
  97. 2.1.2. Clients build circuits on demand
  98. Additionally, when a client request exists that no circuit (built or
  99. pending) might support, we create a new circuit to support the request.
  100. For exit connections, we pick an exit node that will handle the
  101. most pending requests (choosing arbitrarily among ties), launch a
  102. circuit to end there, and repeat until every unattached request
  103. might be supported by a pending or built circuit. For internal
  104. circuits, we pick an arbitrary acceptable path, repeating as needed.
  105. In some cases we can reuse an already established circuit if it's
  106. clean; see Section 2.3 (cannibalizing circuits) for details.
  107. 2.1.3. Servers build circuits for testing reachability and bandwidth
  108. Tor servers test reachability of their ORPort once they have
  109. successfully built a circuit (on start and whenever their IP address
  110. changes). They build an ordinary fast internal circuit with themselves
  111. as the last hop. As soon as any testing circuit succeeds, the Tor
  112. server decides it's reachable and is willing to publish a descriptor.
  113. We launch multiple testing circuits (one at a time), until we
  114. have NUM_PARALLEL_TESTING_CIRC (4) such circuits open. Then we
  115. do a "bandwidth test" by sending a certain number of relay drop
  116. cells down each circuit: BandwidthRate * 10 / CELL_NETWORK_SIZE
  117. total cells divided across the four circuits, but never more than
  118. CIRCWINDOW_START (1000) cells total. This exercises both outgoing and
  119. incoming bandwidth, and helps to jumpstart the observed bandwidth
  120. (see dir-spec.txt).
  121. Tor servers also test reachability of their DirPort once they have
  122. established a circuit, but they use an ordinary exit circuit for
  123. this purpose.
  124. 2.1.4. Hidden-service circuits
  125. See section 4 below.
  126. 2.1.5. Rate limiting of failed circuits
  127. If we fail to build a circuit N times in a X second period (see Section
  128. 2.3 for how this works), we stop building circuits until the X seconds
  129. have elapsed.
  130. XXXX
  131. 2.1.6. When to tear down circuits
  132. XXXX
  133. 2.2. Path selection and constraints
  134. We choose the path for each new circuit before we build it. We choose the
  135. exit node first, followed by the other nodes in the circuit. All paths
  136. we generate obey the following constraints:
  137. - We do not choose the same router twice for the same path.
  138. - We do not choose any router in the same family as another in the same
  139. path.
  140. - We do not choose more than one router in a given /16 subnet
  141. (unless EnforceDistinctSubnets is 0).
  142. - We don't choose any non-running or non-valid router unless we have
  143. been configured to do so. By default, we are configured to allow
  144. non-valid routers in "middle" and "rendezvous" positions.
  145. - If we're using Guard nodes, the first node must be a Guard (see 5
  146. below)
  147. - XXXX Choosing the length
  148. For "fast" circuits, we only choose nodes with the Fast flag. For
  149. non-"fast" circuits, all nodes are eligible.
  150. For all circuits, we weight node selection according to router bandwidth.
  151. We also weight the bandwidth of Exit and Guard flagged nodes depending on
  152. the fraction of total bandwidth that they make up and depending upon the
  153. position they are being selected for.
  154. These weights are published in the consensus, and are computed as described
  155. in Section 3.4.3 of dir-spec.txt. They are:
  156. Wgg - Weight for Guard-flagged nodes in the guard position
  157. Wgm - Weight for non-flagged nodes in the guard Position
  158. Wgd - Weight for Guard+Exit-flagged nodes in the guard Position
  159. Wmg - Weight for Guard-flagged nodes in the middle Position
  160. Wmm - Weight for non-flagged nodes in the middle Position
  161. Wme - Weight for Exit-flagged nodes in the middle Position
  162. Wmd - Weight for Guard+Exit flagged nodes in the middle Position
  163. Weg - Weight for Guard flagged nodes in the exit Position
  164. Wem - Weight for non-flagged nodes in the exit Position
  165. Wee - Weight for Exit-flagged nodes in the exit Position
  166. Wed - Weight for Guard+Exit-flagged nodes in the exit Position
  167. Wgb - Weight for BEGIN_DIR-supporting Guard-flagged nodes
  168. Wmb - Weight for BEGIN_DIR-supporting non-flagged nodes
  169. Web - Weight for BEGIN_DIR-supporting Exit-flagged nodes
  170. Wdb - Weight for BEGIN_DIR-supporting Guard+Exit-flagged nodes
  171. Wbg - Weight for Guard+Exit-flagged nodes for BEGIN_DIR requests
  172. Wbm - Weight for Guard+Exit-flagged nodes for BEGIN_DIR requests
  173. Wbe - Weight for Guard+Exit-flagged nodes for BEGIN_DIR requests
  174. Wbd - Weight for Guard+Exit-flagged nodes for BEGIN_DIR requests
  175. Additionally, we may be building circuits with one or more requests in
  176. mind. Each kind of request puts certain constraints on paths:
  177. - All service-side introduction circuits and all rendezvous paths
  178. should be Stable.
  179. - All connection requests for connections that we think will need to
  180. stay open a long time require Stable circuits. Currently, Tor decides
  181. this by examining the request's target port, and comparing it to a
  182. list of "long-lived" ports. (Default: 21, 22, 706, 1863, 5050,
  183. 5190, 5222, 5223, 6667, 6697, 8300.)
  184. - DNS resolves require an exit node whose exit policy is not equivalent
  185. to "reject *:*".
  186. - Reverse DNS resolves require a version of Tor with advertised eventdns
  187. support (available in Tor 0.1.2.1-alpha-dev and later).
  188. - All connection requests require an exit node whose exit policy
  189. supports their target address and port (if known), or which "might
  190. support it" (if the address isn't known). See 2.2.1.
  191. - Rules for Fast? XXXXX
  192. 2.2.1. Choosing an exit
  193. If we know what IP address we want to connect to or resolve, we can
  194. trivially tell whether a given router will support it by simulating
  195. its declared exit policy.
  196. Because we often connect to addresses of the form hostname:port, we do not
  197. always know the target IP address when we select an exit node. In these
  198. cases, we need to pick an exit node that "might support" connections to a
  199. given address port with an unknown address. An exit node "might support"
  200. such a connection if any clause that accepts any connections to that port
  201. precedes all clauses (if any) that reject all connections to that port.
  202. Unless requested to do so by the user, we never choose an exit server
  203. flagged as "BadExit" by more than half of the authorities who advertise
  204. themselves as listing bad exits.
  205. 2.2.2. User configuration
  206. Users can alter the default behavior for path selection with configuration
  207. options.
  208. - If "ExitNodes" is provided, then every request requires an exit node on
  209. the ExitNodes list. (If a request is supported by no nodes on that list,
  210. and StrictExitNodes is false, then Tor treats that request as if
  211. ExitNodes were not provided.)
  212. - "EntryNodes" and "StrictEntryNodes" behave analogously.
  213. - If a user tries to connect to or resolve a hostname of the form
  214. <target>.<servername>.exit, the request is rewritten to a request for
  215. <target>, and the request is only supported by the exit whose nickname
  216. or fingerprint is <servername>.
  217. 2.3. Cannibalizing circuits
  218. If we need a circuit and have a clean one already established, in
  219. some cases we can adapt the clean circuit for our new
  220. purpose. Specifically,
  221. For hidden service interactions, we can "cannibalize" a clean internal
  222. circuit if one is available, so we don't need to build those circuits
  223. from scratch on demand.
  224. We can also cannibalize clean circuits when the client asks to exit
  225. at a given node -- either via the ".exit" notation or because the
  226. destination is running at the same location as an exit node.
  227. 2.4. Learning when to give up ("timeout") on circuit construction
  228. Since version 0.2.2.8-alpha, Tor attempts to learn when to give up on
  229. circuits based on network conditions.
  230. 2.4.1 Distribution choice and parameter estimation
  231. Based on studies of build times, we found that the distribution of
  232. circuit build times appears to be a Frechet distribution. However,
  233. estimators and quantile functions of the Frechet distribution are
  234. difficult to work with and slow to converge. So instead, since we
  235. are only interested in the accuracy of the tail, we approximate
  236. the tail of the distribution with a Pareto curve.
  237. We calculate the parameters for a Pareto distribution fitting the data
  238. using the estimators in equation 4 from:
  239. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1647962.1648139
  240. This is:
  241. alpha_m = s/(ln(U(X)/Xm^n))
  242. where s is the total number of completed circuits we have seen, and
  243. U(X) = x_max^u * Prod_s{x_i}
  244. with x_i as our i-th completed circuit time, x_max as the longest
  245. completed circuit build time we have yet observed, u as the
  246. number of unobserved timeouts that have no exact value recorded,
  247. and n as u+s, the total number of circuits that either timeout or
  248. complete.
  249. Using log laws, we compute this as the sum of logs to avoid
  250. overflow and ln(1.0+epsilon) precision issues:
  251. alpha_m = s/(u*ln(x_max) + Sum_s{ln(x_i)} - n*ln(Xm))
  252. This estimator is closely related to the parameters present in:
  253. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution#Parameter_estimation
  254. except they are adjusted to handle the fact that our samples are
  255. right-censored at the timeout cutoff.
  256. Additionally, because this is not a true Pareto distribution, we alter
  257. how Xm is computed. The Xm parameter is computed as the midpoint of the most
  258. frequently occurring 50ms histogram bin, until the point where 1000
  259. circuits are recorded. After this point, the weighted average of the top
  260. 'cbtnummodes' (default: 3) midpoint modes is used as Xm. All times below
  261. this value are counted as having the midpoint value of this weighted average bin.
  262. The timeout itself is calculated by using the Pareto Quantile function (the
  263. inverted CDF) to give us the value on the CDF such that 80% of the mass
  264. of the distribution is below the timeout value.
  265. Thus, we expect that the Tor client will accept the fastest 80% of
  266. the total number of paths on the network.
  267. 2.4.2. How much data to record
  268. From our observations, the minimum number of circuit build times for a
  269. reasonable fit appears to be on the order of 100. However, to keep a
  270. good fit over the long term, we store 1000 most recent circuit build times
  271. in a circular array.
  272. The Tor client should build test circuits at a rate of one per
  273. minute up until 100 circuits are built. This allows a fresh Tor to have
  274. a CircuitBuildTimeout estimated within 1.5 hours after install,
  275. upgrade, or network change (see below).
  276. Timeouts are stored on disk in a histogram of 50ms bin width, the same
  277. width used to calculate the Xm value above. This histogram must be shuffled
  278. after being read from disk, to preserve a proper expiration of old values
  279. after restart.
  280. 2.4.3. How to record timeouts
  281. Circuits that pass the timeout threshold should be allowed to continue
  282. building until a time corresponding to the point 'cbtclosequantile'
  283. (default 95) on the Pareto curve, or 60 seconds, whichever is greater.
  284. The actual completion times for these circuits should be recorded.
  285. Implementations should completely abandon a circuit and record a value
  286. as an 'unknown' timeout if the total build time exceeds this threshold.
  287. The reason for this is that right-censored pareto estimators begin to lose
  288. their accuracy if more than approximately 5% of the values are censored.
  289. Since we wish to set the cutoff at 20%, we must allow circuits to continue
  290. building past this cutoff point up to the 95th percentile.
  291. 2.4.4. Detecting Changing Network Conditions
  292. We attempt to detect both network connectivity loss and drastic
  293. changes in the timeout characteristics.
  294. We assume that we've had network connectivity loss if 3 circuits
  295. timeout and we've received no cells or TLS handshakes since those
  296. circuits began. We then temporarily set the timeout to 60 seconds
  297. and stop counting timeouts.
  298. If 3 more circuits timeout and the network still has not been
  299. live within this new 60 second timeout window, we then discard
  300. the previous timeouts during this period from our history.
  301. To detect changing network conditions, we keep a history of
  302. the timeout or non-timeout status of the past 20 circuits that
  303. successfully completed at least one hop. If more than 90% of
  304. these circuits timeout, we discard all buildtimes history, reset
  305. the timeout to 60, and then begin recomputing the timeout.
  306. If the timeout was already 60 or higher, we double the timeout.
  307. 2.4.5. Consensus parameters governing behavior
  308. Clients that implement circuit build timeout learning should obey the
  309. following consensus parameters that govern behavior, in order to allow
  310. us to handle bugs or other emergent behaviors due to client circuit
  311. construction. If these parameters are not present in the consensus,
  312. the listed default values should be used instead.
  313. cbtdisabled
  314. Default: 0
  315. Effect: If non-zero, all CircuitBuildTime learning code should be
  316. disabled and history should be discarded. For use in
  317. emergency situations only.
  318. cbtnummodes
  319. Default: 3
  320. Effect: This value governs how many modes to use in the weighted
  321. average calculation of Pareto paramter Xm. A value of 3 introduces
  322. some bias (2-5% of CDF) under ideal conditions, but allows for better
  323. performance in the event that a client chooses guard nodes of radically
  324. different performance characteristics.
  325. cbtrecentcount
  326. Default: 20
  327. Effect: This is the number of circuit build times to keep track of
  328. for the following option.
  329. cbtmaxtimeouts
  330. Default: 18
  331. Effect: When this many timeouts happen in the last 'cbtrecentcount'
  332. circuit attempts, the client should discard all of its
  333. history and begin learning a fresh timeout value.
  334. cbtmincircs
  335. Default: 100
  336. Effect: This is the minimum number of circuits to build before
  337. computing a timeout.
  338. cbtquantile
  339. Default: 80
  340. Effect: This is the position on the quantile curve to use to set the
  341. timeout value. It is a percent (0-99).
  342. cbtclosequantile
  343. Default: 95
  344. Effect: This is the position on the quantile curve to use to set the
  345. timeout value to use to actually close circuits. It is a percent
  346. (0-99).
  347. cbttestfreq
  348. Default: 60
  349. Effect: Describes how often in seconds to build a test circuit to
  350. gather timeout values. Only applies if less than 'cbtmincircs'
  351. have been recorded.
  352. cbtmintimeout
  353. Default: 2000
  354. Effect: This is the minimum allowed timeout value in milliseconds.
  355. cbtinitialtimeout
  356. Default: 60000
  357. Effect: This is the timeout value to use before computing a timeout,
  358. in milliseconds.
  359. 2.5. Handling failure
  360. If an attempt to extend a circuit fails (either because the first create
  361. failed or a subsequent extend failed) then the circuit is torn down and is
  362. no longer pending. (XXXX really?) Requests that might have been
  363. supported by the pending circuit thus become unsupported, and a new
  364. circuit needs to be constructed.
  365. If a stream "begin" attempt fails with an EXITPOLICY error, we
  366. decide that the exit node's exit policy is not correctly advertised,
  367. so we treat the exit node as if it were a non-exit until we retrieve
  368. a fresh descriptor for it.
  369. XXXX
  370. 3. Attaching streams to circuits
  371. When a circuit that might support a request is built, Tor tries to attach
  372. the request's stream to the circuit and sends a BEGIN, BEGIN_DIR,
  373. or RESOLVE relay
  374. cell as appropriate. If the request completes unsuccessfully, Tor
  375. considers the reason given in the CLOSE relay cell. [XXX yes, and?]
  376. After a request has remained unattached for SocksTimeout (2 minutes
  377. by default), Tor abandons the attempt and signals an error to the
  378. client as appropriate (e.g., by closing the SOCKS connection).
  379. XXX Timeouts and when Tor auto-retries.
  380. * What stream-end-reasons are appropriate for retrying.
  381. If no reply to BEGIN/RESOLVE, then the stream will timeout and fail.
  382. 4. Hidden-service related circuits
  383. XXX Tracking expected hidden service use (client-side and hidserv-side)
  384. 5. Guard nodes
  385. We use Guard nodes (also called "helper nodes" in the literature) to
  386. prevent certain profiling attacks. Here's the risk: if we choose entry and
  387. exit nodes at random, and an attacker controls C out of N servers
  388. (ignoring bandwidth), then the
  389. attacker will control the entry and exit node of any given circuit with
  390. probability (C/N)^2. But as we make many different circuits over time,
  391. then the probability that the attacker will see a sample of about (C/N)^2
  392. of our traffic goes to 1. Since statistical sampling works, the attacker
  393. can be sure of learning a profile of our behavior.
  394. If, on the other hand, we picked an entry node and held it fixed, we would
  395. have probability C/N of choosing a bad entry and being profiled, and
  396. probability (N-C)/N of choosing a good entry and not being profiled.
  397. When guard nodes are enabled, Tor maintains an ordered list of entry nodes
  398. as our chosen guards, and stores this list persistently to disk. If a Guard
  399. node becomes unusable, rather than replacing it, Tor adds new guards to the
  400. end of the list. When choosing the first hop of a circuit, Tor
  401. chooses at
  402. random from among the first NumEntryGuards (default 3) usable guards on the
  403. list. If there are not at least 2 usable guards on the list, Tor adds
  404. routers until there are, or until there are no more usable routers to add.
  405. A guard is unusable if any of the following hold:
  406. - it is not marked as a Guard by the networkstatuses,
  407. - it is not marked Valid (and the user hasn't set AllowInvalid entry)
  408. - it is not marked Running
  409. - Tor couldn't reach it the last time it tried to connect
  410. A guard is unusable for a particular circuit if any of the rules for path
  411. selection in 2.2 are not met. In particular, if the circuit is "fast"
  412. and the guard is not Fast, or if the circuit is "stable" and the guard is
  413. not Stable, or if the guard has already been chosen as the exit node in
  414. that circuit, Tor can't use it as a guard node for that circuit.
  415. If the guard is excluded because of its status in the networkstatuses for
  416. over 30 days, Tor removes it from the list entirely, preserving order.
  417. If Tor fails to connect to an otherwise usable guard, it retries
  418. periodically: every hour for six hours, every 4 hours for 3 days, every
  419. 18 hours for a week, and every 36 hours thereafter. Additionally, Tor
  420. retries unreachable guards the first time it adds a new guard to the list,
  421. since it is possible that the old guards were only marked as unreachable
  422. because the network was unreachable or down.
  423. Tor does not add a guard persistently to the list until the first time we
  424. have connected to it successfully.
  425. 6. Router descriptor purposes
  426. There are currently three "purposes" supported for router descriptors:
  427. general, controller, and bridge. Most descriptors are of type general
  428. -- these are the ones listed in the consensus, and the ones fetched
  429. and used in normal cases.
  430. Controller-purpose descriptors are those delivered by the controller
  431. and labelled as such: they will be kept around (and expire like
  432. normal descriptors), and they can be used by the controller in its
  433. CIRCUITEXTEND commands. Otherwise they are ignored by Tor when it
  434. chooses paths.
  435. Bridge-purpose descriptors are for routers that are used as bridges. See
  436. doc/design-paper/blocking.pdf for more design explanation, or proposal
  437. 125 for specific details. Currently bridge descriptors are used in place
  438. of normal entry guards, for Tor clients that have UseBridges enabled.
  439. X. Old notes
  440. X.1. Do we actually do this?
  441. How to deal with network down.
  442. - While all helpers are down/unreachable and there are no established
  443. or on-the-way testing circuits, launch a testing circuit. (Do this
  444. periodically in the same way we try to establish normal circuits
  445. when things are working normally.)
  446. (Testing circuits are a special type of circuit, that streams won't
  447. attach to by accident.)
  448. - When a testing circuit succeeds, mark all helpers up and hold
  449. the testing circuit open.
  450. - If a connection to a helper succeeds, close all testing circuits.
  451. Else mark that helper down and try another.
  452. - If the last helper is marked down and we already have a testing
  453. circuit established, then add the first hop of that testing circuit
  454. to the end of our helper node list, close that testing circuit,
  455. and go back to square one. (Actually, rather than closing the
  456. testing circuit, can we get away with converting it to a normal
  457. circuit and beginning to use it immediately?)
  458. [Do we actually do any of the above? If so, let's spec it. If not, let's
  459. remove it. -NM]
  460. X.2. A thing we could do to deal with reachability.
  461. And as a bonus, it leads to an answer to Nick's attack ("If I pick
  462. my helper nodes all on 18.0.0.0:*, then I move, you'll know where I
  463. bootstrapped") -- the answer is to pick your original three helper nodes
  464. without regard for reachability. Then the above algorithm will add some
  465. more that are reachable for you, and if you move somewhere, it's more
  466. likely (though not certain) that some of the originals will become useful.
  467. Is that smart or just complex?
  468. X.3. Some stuff that worries me about entry guards. 2006 Jun, Nickm.
  469. It is unlikely for two users to have the same set of entry guards.
  470. Observing a user is sufficient to learn its entry guards. So, as we move
  471. around, entry guards make us linkable. If we want to change guards when
  472. our location (IP? subnet?) changes, we have two bad options. We could
  473. - Drop the old guards. But if we go back to our old location,
  474. we'll not use our old guards. For a laptop that sometimes gets used
  475. from work and sometimes from home, this is pretty fatal.
  476. - Remember the old guards as associated with the old location, and use
  477. them again if we ever go back to the old location. This would be
  478. nasty, since it would force us to record where we've been.
  479. [Do we do any of this now? If not, this should move into 099-misc or
  480. 098-todo. -NM]