commit ed801b7af052b2fc39d06d524e6db797da8af6dc Author: Nick Mathewson nickm@torproject.org Date: Tue Jan 17 11:37:25 2012 -0500
Remove port ranges from prop186 --- proposals/186-multiple-orports.txt | 16 +++++++++------- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/proposals/186-multiple-orports.txt b/proposals/186-multiple-orports.txt index d76377d..aa1a789 100644 --- a/proposals/186-multiple-orports.txt +++ b/proposals/186-multiple-orports.txt @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ New descriptor syntax: IPV6ADDR = an ipv6 address, surrounded by square brackets. IPV4ADDR = an ipv4 address, represented as a dotted quad. PORTLIST = PORTSPEC | PORTSPEC "," PORTLIST - PORTSPEC = PORT | PORT "-" PORT + PORTSPEC = PORT PORT = a number between 1 and 65535 inclusive.
[This is the regular format for specifying sets of addresses and @@ -251,13 +251,15 @@ Why not extend DirPort this way too? That is, clients tunnel their directory requests inside OR connections, and don't generally connect to DirPorts at all.
-Why not have address ranges? +Why not have address and port ranges?
- Earlier drafts of this proposal suggested that clients should - provide not only ranges of ports, but also ranges of addresses, - specified with bitmasks. That's a neat idea for circumvention, - but if we did that, you wouldn't want to advertise publicly that - you have an entire address range. + Earlier drafts of this proposal suggested that servers should provide + ranges of addresses, specified with bitmasks. That's a neat idea for + circumvention, but if we did that, you wouldn't want to advertise + publicly that you have an entire address range. + + Port ranges are out because I don't think they would actually get used + much, and they add a fair bit of complexity.
Coding impact: