[tor-bugs] #9349 [Flashproxy]: flashproxy facilitator: Allow clients to specify transports

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#9349: flashproxy facilitator: Allow clients to specify transports
----------------------------+--------------------------
     Reporter:  asn         |      Owner:  dcf
         Type:  task        |     Status:  needs_review
     Priority:  normal      |  Milestone:
    Component:  Flashproxy  |    Version:
   Resolution:              |   Keywords:
Actual Points:              |  Parent ID:  #7167
       Points:              |
----------------------------+--------------------------

Comment (by infinity0):

 I have some updates:

 https://github.com/infinity0/flashproxy/compare/_tpo_dcf_bug9349_server...bug9349_server

 this is some bugfixing and tidying up on top of dcf's current branch HEAD
 over on git.tpo.

 https://github.com/infinity0/flashproxy/compare/bug9349_server...bug9349_server_endpoints

 This is my Endpoints implementation/refactoring plus a load of tests.
 Behavioural changes on top of the refactoring:
 - don't match ipv6 proxies to ipv4 servers <- this is a break from the old
 code that seemed to make sense, since we can't assume that IPv4 servers
 support IPv6. But this also means that a proxy that supports both
 IPv4/IPv6 can't connect a IPv4 client / IPv6 server - do we want to
 support this use-case?

 I also got rid of the "chain" terminology and tweaked the fac.py
 transaction interface to suit this.

 Pretty diagram here: https://github.com/infinity0/flashproxy/network

 I'll review and integrate the url-param stuff next. But just from scanning
 the previous post - is the newline really necessary? I thought URL params
 allowed for multiple key/values, so we could just do
 `zip(params.getlist("client"), params.getlist("transport"))` ?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9349#comment:33>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online