path-spec.txt 26 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590
  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 at
  239. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution#Parameter_estimation.
  240. Because this is not a true Pareto distribution, we alter how Xm is
  241. computed. The Xm parameter is computed as the midpoint of the most
  242. frequently occurring 50ms histogram bin, until the point where 1000
  243. circuits are recorded. After this point, the weighted average of the top
  244. 3 midpoint modes is used as Xm. All times below this value are counted
  245. as having the midpoint value of this weighted average bin.
  246. The timeout itself is calculated by using the Pareto Quantile function (the
  247. inverted CDF) to give us the value on the CDF such that 80% of the mass
  248. of the distribution is below the timeout value.
  249. Thus, we expect that the Tor client will accept the fastest 80% of
  250. the total number of paths on the network.
  251. 2.4.2. How much data to record
  252. From our observations, the minimum number of circuit build times for a
  253. reasonable fit appears to be on the order of 100. However, to keep a
  254. good fit over the long term, we store 1000 most recent circuit build times
  255. in a circular array.
  256. The Tor client should build test circuits at a rate of one per
  257. minute up until 100 circuits are built. This allows a fresh Tor to have
  258. a CircuitBuildTimeout estimated within 1.5 hours after install,
  259. upgrade, or network change (see below).
  260. Timeouts are stored on disk in a histogram of 50ms bin width, the same
  261. width used to calculate the Xm value above. This histogram must be shuffled
  262. after being read from disk, to preserve a proper expiration of old values
  263. after restart.
  264. 2.4.3. How to record timeouts
  265. Timeouts should be counted as the expectation of the region of
  266. of the Pareto distribution beyond the cutoff. This is done by
  267. generating a random sample for each timeout at points on the
  268. curve beyond the current timeout cutoff up to the 90% quantile marker.
  269. 2.4.4. Detecting Changing Network Conditions
  270. We attempt to detect both network connectivity loss and drastic
  271. changes in the timeout characteristics.
  272. We assume that we've had network connectivity loss if 3 circuits
  273. timeout and we've received no cells or TLS handshakes since those
  274. circuits began. We then temporarily set the timeout to 60 seconds
  275. and stop counting timeouts.
  276. If 3 more circuits timeout and the network still has not been
  277. live within this new 60 second timeout window, we then discard
  278. the previous timeouts during this period from our history.
  279. To detect changing network conditions, we keep a history of
  280. the timeout or non-timeout status of the past 20 circuits that
  281. successfully completed at least one hop. If more than 90% of
  282. these circuits timeout, we discard all buildtimes history, reset
  283. the timeout to 60, and then begin recomputing the timeout.
  284. If the timeout was already 60 or higher, we double the timeout.
  285. 2.4.5. Consensus parameters governing behavior
  286. Clients that implement circuit build timeout learning should obey the
  287. following consensus parameters that govern behavior, in order to allow
  288. us to handle bugs or other emergent behaviors due to client circuit
  289. construction. If these parameters are not present in the consensus,
  290. the listed default values should be used instead.
  291. cbtdisabled
  292. Default: 0
  293. Effect: If non-zero, all CircuitBuildTime learning code should be
  294. disabled and history should be discarded. For use in
  295. emergency situations only.
  296. cbtrecentcount
  297. Default: 20
  298. Effect: This is the number of circuit build times to keep track of
  299. for the following option.
  300. cbtmaxtimeouts
  301. Default: 18
  302. Effect: When this many timeouts happen in the last 'cbtrecentcount'
  303. circuit attempts, the client should discard all of its
  304. history and begin learning a fresh timeout value.
  305. cbtmincircs
  306. Default: 100
  307. Effect: This is the minimum number of circuits to build before
  308. computing a timeout.
  309. cbtquantile
  310. Default: 80
  311. Effect: This is the position on the quantile curve to use to set the
  312. timeout value. It is a percent (0-99).
  313. cbtmaxsynthquantile
  314. Default: 90
  315. Effect: This is the maximum position on the quantile curve to use to
  316. generate synthetic circuit build times for timeouts. It is a
  317. percent (0-99).
  318. cbttestfreq
  319. Default: 60
  320. Effect: Describes how often in seconds to build a test circuit to
  321. gather timeout values. Only applies if less than 'cbtmincircs'
  322. have been recorded.
  323. cbtmintimeout
  324. Default: 2000
  325. Effect: This is the minimum allowed timeout value in milliseconds.
  326. cbtinitialtimeout
  327. Default: 60000
  328. Effect: This is the timeout value to use before computing a timeout,
  329. in milliseconds.
  330. 2.5. Handling failure
  331. If an attempt to extend a circuit fails (either because the first create
  332. failed or a subsequent extend failed) then the circuit is torn down and is
  333. no longer pending. (XXXX really?) Requests that might have been
  334. supported by the pending circuit thus become unsupported, and a new
  335. circuit needs to be constructed.
  336. If a stream "begin" attempt fails with an EXITPOLICY error, we
  337. decide that the exit node's exit policy is not correctly advertised,
  338. so we treat the exit node as if it were a non-exit until we retrieve
  339. a fresh descriptor for it.
  340. XXXX
  341. 3. Attaching streams to circuits
  342. When a circuit that might support a request is built, Tor tries to attach
  343. the request's stream to the circuit and sends a BEGIN, BEGIN_DIR,
  344. or RESOLVE relay
  345. cell as appropriate. If the request completes unsuccessfully, Tor
  346. considers the reason given in the CLOSE relay cell. [XXX yes, and?]
  347. After a request has remained unattached for SocksTimeout (2 minutes
  348. by default), Tor abandons the attempt and signals an error to the
  349. client as appropriate (e.g., by closing the SOCKS connection).
  350. XXX Timeouts and when Tor auto-retries.
  351. * What stream-end-reasons are appropriate for retrying.
  352. If no reply to BEGIN/RESOLVE, then the stream will timeout and fail.
  353. 4. Hidden-service related circuits
  354. XXX Tracking expected hidden service use (client-side and hidserv-side)
  355. 5. Guard nodes
  356. We use Guard nodes (also called "helper nodes" in the literature) to
  357. prevent certain profiling attacks. Here's the risk: if we choose entry and
  358. exit nodes at random, and an attacker controls C out of N servers
  359. (ignoring bandwidth), then the
  360. attacker will control the entry and exit node of any given circuit with
  361. probability (C/N)^2. But as we make many different circuits over time,
  362. then the probability that the attacker will see a sample of about (C/N)^2
  363. of our traffic goes to 1. Since statistical sampling works, the attacker
  364. can be sure of learning a profile of our behavior.
  365. If, on the other hand, we picked an entry node and held it fixed, we would
  366. have probability C/N of choosing a bad entry and being profiled, and
  367. probability (N-C)/N of choosing a good entry and not being profiled.
  368. When guard nodes are enabled, Tor maintains an ordered list of entry nodes
  369. as our chosen guards, and stores this list persistently to disk. If a Guard
  370. node becomes unusable, rather than replacing it, Tor adds new guards to the
  371. end of the list. When choosing the first hop of a circuit, Tor
  372. chooses at
  373. random from among the first NumEntryGuards (default 3) usable guards on the
  374. list. If there are not at least 2 usable guards on the list, Tor adds
  375. routers until there are, or until there are no more usable routers to add.
  376. A guard is unusable if any of the following hold:
  377. - it is not marked as a Guard by the networkstatuses,
  378. - it is not marked Valid (and the user hasn't set AllowInvalid entry)
  379. - it is not marked Running
  380. - Tor couldn't reach it the last time it tried to connect
  381. A guard is unusable for a particular circuit if any of the rules for path
  382. selection in 2.2 are not met. In particular, if the circuit is "fast"
  383. and the guard is not Fast, or if the circuit is "stable" and the guard is
  384. not Stable, or if the guard has already been chosen as the exit node in
  385. that circuit, Tor can't use it as a guard node for that circuit.
  386. If the guard is excluded because of its status in the networkstatuses for
  387. over 30 days, Tor removes it from the list entirely, preserving order.
  388. If Tor fails to connect to an otherwise usable guard, it retries
  389. periodically: every hour for six hours, every 4 hours for 3 days, every
  390. 18 hours for a week, and every 36 hours thereafter. Additionally, Tor
  391. retries unreachable guards the first time it adds a new guard to the list,
  392. since it is possible that the old guards were only marked as unreachable
  393. because the network was unreachable or down.
  394. Tor does not add a guard persistently to the list until the first time we
  395. have connected to it successfully.
  396. 6. Router descriptor purposes
  397. There are currently three "purposes" supported for router descriptors:
  398. general, controller, and bridge. Most descriptors are of type general
  399. -- these are the ones listed in the consensus, and the ones fetched
  400. and used in normal cases.
  401. Controller-purpose descriptors are those delivered by the controller
  402. and labelled as such: they will be kept around (and expire like
  403. normal descriptors), and they can be used by the controller in its
  404. CIRCUITEXTEND commands. Otherwise they are ignored by Tor when it
  405. chooses paths.
  406. Bridge-purpose descriptors are for routers that are used as bridges. See
  407. doc/design-paper/blocking.pdf for more design explanation, or proposal
  408. 125 for specific details. Currently bridge descriptors are used in place
  409. of normal entry guards, for Tor clients that have UseBridges enabled.
  410. X. Old notes
  411. X.1. Do we actually do this?
  412. How to deal with network down.
  413. - While all helpers are down/unreachable and there are no established
  414. or on-the-way testing circuits, launch a testing circuit. (Do this
  415. periodically in the same way we try to establish normal circuits
  416. when things are working normally.)
  417. (Testing circuits are a special type of circuit, that streams won't
  418. attach to by accident.)
  419. - When a testing circuit succeeds, mark all helpers up and hold
  420. the testing circuit open.
  421. - If a connection to a helper succeeds, close all testing circuits.
  422. Else mark that helper down and try another.
  423. - If the last helper is marked down and we already have a testing
  424. circuit established, then add the first hop of that testing circuit
  425. to the end of our helper node list, close that testing circuit,
  426. and go back to square one. (Actually, rather than closing the
  427. testing circuit, can we get away with converting it to a normal
  428. circuit and beginning to use it immediately?)
  429. [Do we actually do any of the above? If so, let's spec it. If not, let's
  430. remove it. -NM]
  431. X.2. A thing we could do to deal with reachability.
  432. And as a bonus, it leads to an answer to Nick's attack ("If I pick
  433. my helper nodes all on 18.0.0.0:*, then I move, you'll know where I
  434. bootstrapped") -- the answer is to pick your original three helper nodes
  435. without regard for reachability. Then the above algorithm will add some
  436. more that are reachable for you, and if you move somewhere, it's more
  437. likely (though not certain) that some of the originals will become useful.
  438. Is that smart or just complex?
  439. X.3. Some stuff that worries me about entry guards. 2006 Jun, Nickm.
  440. It is unlikely for two users to have the same set of entry guards.
  441. Observing a user is sufficient to learn its entry guards. So, as we move
  442. around, entry guards make us linkable. If we want to change guards when
  443. our location (IP? subnet?) changes, we have two bad options. We could
  444. - Drop the old guards. But if we go back to our old location,
  445. we'll not use our old guards. For a laptop that sometimes gets used
  446. from work and sometimes from home, this is pretty fatal.
  447. - Remember the old guards as associated with the old location, and use
  448. them again if we ever go back to the old location. This would be
  449. nasty, since it would force us to record where we've been.
  450. [Do we do any of this now? If not, this should move into 099-misc or
  451. 098-todo. -NM]