-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, when requesting a new group by feature for compass [1] (#6662 [2]) I discussed with Karsten about how to handle asynchronous/overlapping families: karsten:
Here's an example. Assume we have three relays: A, B, and C. These relays state the following family relationships:
A: A, B B: A, B, C C: B, C
We require mutual agreement about being in the same family, so we could either come up with family A, B or with family B, C. Which one is correct?
I proposed to go with family = A, B, C because there is a mutual agreement between A<->B and B<->C. A and C agreed to be in a family with B, and B agreed to be in a family with A and C. Such configurations can be found in the wild mostly due to incomplete MyFamily configurations on relays in big families. As every big relay operator knows configuring families is a non-trivial effort with a growing number of relays. Now I thought about it and wanted to suggest this MyFamily interpretation as an alternate approach to the fully mutual setup where *every* relay must be reconfigured as opposed to just two of them. Why? This would reduce the configuration effort required when adding a new relay to *two* relays regardless of how many relays are in your family. Now, the MyFamily configuration overhead for big families is a well known problem so I suppose someone else did already propose this approach? What do you think about it? [1] https://compass.torproject.org [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6662 a additional example to make this clearer: A: A, B, C B: A, B, C C: A, B, C D: A, B, C, D family = A, B, C A family member must have a *mutual* agreement with at least *one* node. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF4EAREKAAYFAlA2YkoACgkQyM26BSNOM7Yp2wD/VTBw8BmUJlRZtIfXahIGX+t0 zwzP6MfRDwgPCsQMeEUA/3dUyyoq91Fx4lmihWHis2DZNAoM/CHh2MnwgMNL/W1W =FWRU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:03:06 +0000, tagnaq wrote: ...
Why? This would reduce the configuration effort required when adding a new relay to *two* relays regardless of how many relays are in your family.
True, but: If one relay disappears for a while then the family may break into two if it was the only joint. So from an operative point a bit more redundancy would be helpful. ...
A family member must have a *mutual* agreement with at least *one* node.
That's (the *mutual*) is an important point that wasn't immediately clear from the preceding. Otherwise I alone can put everything in a single family under this definition. :-) Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
True, but: If one relay disappears for a while then the family may break into two if it was the only joint.
For the family (see #6662): 3cce3a91f6a625~8DE5 bc1245cbe16d5ee9b2~2D25 the connecting relay was down since 2012-04-04 and still karsten created the family in this case, but I'm not sure if karsten used more descriptors as would usually be available to an ordinary tor client. https://metrics.torproject.org/relay-search.html?search=%24A0EA6A3D1B4D30F50... one more example: A: B, C, E (A is the connecting central node) B: A C: A D: A, B, C, D E: A family = A, B, C, E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF4EAREKAAYFAlA2jskACgkQyM26BSNOM7aoqwD+JossIuqs3Zps9NYLF/lrK2XS DG7CaenEFNdsWN9mwVEA/3I3uH6YAiN2MMVR7od5yUAcgDYssmg5tlFm6lQfyJk5 =Z7DY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 8/23/12 10:12 PM, tagnaq wrote:
True, but: If one relay disappears for a while then the family may break into two if it was the only joint.
For the family (see #6662): 3cce3a91f6a625~8DE5 bc1245cbe16d5ee9b2~2D25
the connecting relay was down since 2012-04-04 and still karsten created the family in this case, but I'm not sure if karsten used more descriptors as would usually be available to an ordinary tor client.
https://metrics.torproject.org/relay-search.html?search=%24A0EA6A3D1B4D30F50...
My fault. The script had a bug where it didn't confirm mutual family relationships correctly. There's a fixed list attached to #6662. The script only uses descriptors of currently running relays. Best, Karsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Just stumbled upon Mike's trac entry to change MyFamily too, I'm adding it to this thread as a ref: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5565 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF4EAREKAAYFAlA3ZOMACgkQyM26BSNOM7aYXwEAm6a0ZWf5nrFDpRzMLkRsTeS1 aL2htrhegkGiRKHy03kA/12qszUWFOcCh4Sw4DQfUBFx8nusVgeXxfpu+lDgMilW =N8nb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Andreas Krey -
Karsten Loesing -
tagnaq