[tor-bugs] #6031 [Tor Hidden Services]: Distinguish when a Tor HS is "not found" vs "not reachable" (exists / does not exists)

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#6031: Distinguish when a Tor HS is "not found" vs "not reachable" (exists / does
not exists)
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  naif                 |          Owner:                    
     Type:  enhancement          |         Status:  needs_revision    
 Priority:  normal               |      Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.4.x-final
Component:  Tor Hidden Services  |        Version:                    
 Keywords:                       |         Parent:                    
   Points:                       |   Actualpoints:                    
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------

Comment(by nickm):

 Replying to [comment:11 andrea]:
 > I've tested this and it seems to work as advertised.  Two issues,
 though:
 >
 > First, RFC 1928 does not define status codes 0x23 or 0x24, and describes
 all status codes >= 0x09 as simply 'unassigned'.  It requires that clients
 treat any status other than 0x00 as an error and disconnect, so the scope
 for pathological behavior *from conforming clients* is limited here, but
 do we know how well clients behave in practice?

 What would you think about using "Host unreachable" for the case where
 lookup fails and "connection refused" for the case where
 introduction/rendezvous fails?  I don't think we'd be doing a great
 violence to either.  (If only they had thought to introduce "name lookup
 failed" when they introduced hostname addresses.  But there's no use
 crying over bad specs.)

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6031#comment:13>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online