123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566 |
- Filename: 118-multiple-orports.txt
- Title: Advertising multiple ORPorts at once
- Version: $Revision$
- Last-Modified: $Date$
- Author: Nick Mathewson
- Created: 09-Jul-2007
- Status: Draft
- Some notes follow. Please feel free to flesh them out, discard them,
- add in better ideas, etc.
- - Some way to configure which address:port combinations to listen
- on, and/or which to advertise.
- (The best way to support lots of ports is to have your firewall
- route all connections from those ports to Tor: this doesn't need
- anywhere near as many listening sockets. You only really want to
- listen on tons and tons of ports if your firewalling doesn't
- support this, or you don't have access to your local
- iptables/ipf/whatever. But if you want to do this with the
- firewall, you need the ability to advertise ports you aren't
- actually listening on.)
- (Cat would also like to see some discussion of the effect this
- is likely to have in environments that need to ban or limit Tor.
- "Speaking only for myself, in an environment where I need to keep
- a lid on Tor usage, having to chase port settings around makes it
- more likely that I'm going to move from limiting Tor to just plain
- banning it.")
- - Some way to advertise in one's router descriptor which
- address:port combinations you're listening on. For backward
- compatibility this should be a new line, not a change to the
- format of an existing line.
- - Possibly, some way to relay this information in network-status
- documents.
- - Some analysis of the impact on network-status and routerinfo
- size. My guess is "not much", but if it turns out to be a bit, we
- should look into making the notation concise.
- - What does this imply for self-testing of servers and testing by
- authorities of servers? What should the authorities do if one
- addr:port works but one doesn't?
- - Some way to pick which addr:port to use when you have a choice of
- more than one addr:port.
- - Some way to avoid having servers open lots and lots of connections
- between them when they get extend cells to the same server on
- different ports.
- - Suggested rule:
- - If we're told to extend to IP:Port:ID, and we have a connection
- to some server with ID, and we have confirmed that the server
- likes the address we originally used when connecting to it (via
- means in proposal 105), then use the existing connection.
- - If we're told to extend to IP:Port:ID, and we have a descriptor
- for the ID, and we have a connection to some server with ID,
- and the existing connection is to an address listed as valid
- in the descriptor, then use the existing connection.
- - Otherwise, use a new connection.
- - How this all interacts with coderman's ipv6 stuff (proposal 117).
|