Hi teor, Thank you so much. I understand that it could take time from your in-person meeting. My proposal is here as a PR: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/53 Sorry if I am doing anything wrong, this is my first time doing a proposal. -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ January 26, 2019 12:31 AM, "teor" <teor@riseup.net> wrote:

On January 25, 2019 9:53:51 PM UTC, Neel Chauhan <neel@neelc.org> wrote:

...

Hi tor-dev@ mailing list,

I have been working on Bug #27491 (https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/27491) and have been asked to write a proposal. My proposal is attached to this email as a text file.

I would really appreciate your comments on this proposal (is it good, bad, any problems with it?).

Hi Neel,

Thank you for this proposal.

The draft code and my initial review are in this GitHub pull request: https://github.com/torproject/tor/pull/566

Most of the network team have finished work for the week, and we have an in-person meeting next week. So it might take us a few weeks to review your proposal.

We do a lot of our reviews on GitHub pull requests. Proposals usually go in https://github.com/torproject/torspec/tree/master/proposals

T

-- teor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

On January 27, 2019 6:23:15 AM UTC, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:

...

https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/53 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/27491 https://github.com/torproject/tor/pull/566 https://github.com/torproject/torspec/tree/master/proposals

The subject would make use of the folllowing RFC...

Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8305

You probably want to reference it in any relavant proposal, ticket, pull.

I agree that "happy eyeballs" provides a really good user experience. But before we implement rfc8305 in Tor, we would need to refactor Tor's address handling code. At the moment, Tor: 1. Chooses a set of guards using their consensus weights (or has a configured set of bridges), 2. Chooses a guard with a reachable address, 3. Chooses an address for that guard, 4. Connects to that address (or uses an existing connection) If we wanted to implement rfc8305, Tor would need to: 1. Choose a set of guards that includes at least some IPv4 and IPv6 guards 2. Choose a guard with a reachable address, and, if that guard is not dual-stack, choose another guard that has a reachable address from the missing address family 3. Connect to both the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses We would also need to think about the load-balancing and privacy implications of this change. Trying to keep a connection to two guards sounds like proposal 291: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/blob/master/proposals/291-two-guard-no... We should think about how these proposals interact. But that's a big job, and we won't have time for it for at least 6 months. In the meantime, let's try to make some quick changes that make Tor work better with IPv6. Even if they are not ideal. Then we can replace them with something better, when we have the time.

Below is of minor import...

Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724

Tor doesn't use getaddrinfo() or DNS to discover relay addresses. If we did re-implement rfc6724 in Tor, it wouldn't make much difference. Most relays are IPv4-only, so there is no address choice. For dual-stack relays, it would choose between one IPv4 and one IPv6 address. So I am not sure how rfc6724 applies to Tor. -- teor ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Nick, Thank you so much! Sorry if my proposal says "Draft". I believe my proposal is complete. Would it be possible to mark Prop299 as "Open"? Best, Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ January 28, 2019 5:32 AM, "Nick Mathewson" <nickm@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:54 PM Neel Chauhan <neel@neelc.org> wrote:

...

Hi tor-dev@ mailing list,

I have been working on Bug #27491 (https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/27491) and have been asked to write a proposal. My proposal is attached to this email as a text file.

I would really appreciate your comments on this proposal (is it good, bad, any problems with it?).

For tracking, I have added this as proposal 299! It looks neat to me.

-- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev