Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag

Nick Mathewson nickm at
Thu Oct 18 18:57:47 UTC 2007

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:53:24PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 12:46:59PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> > > > (This whole proposal is meant only for v3 dir flags; we shouldn't try
> > > > to backport it to the v2 dir world.)
> > > 
> > > Can we still list the unnamed routers in the v2 status, even without an
> > > unnamed flag?  Because if not and I enable auto-naming on tor26 I'll stop
> > > listing about 150 routers for using names that are already taken.
> > 
> > That shouldn't be a problem ; the v2 status is generated pretty
> > independently from the v3 consensus.  I think it's best to leave v2
> > directories more or less alone and reserve new features for the v3
> > directory system only.
> If Peter adds many lines to his approved-routers file (as he is suggesting
> he'll do), then these will affect both v2 and v3 networkstatuses. If we
> only have this Unnamed thing for v3, then the result is that Peter's v2
> authority will stop listing about 15% of the network. This is bad.
> Unless we add a notion of Naming that applies only to v3.

Now I get it.  I've looked through the 0.1.2.x code, and as near as
I can tell, nothing bad will happen if the Unnamed servers are listed
in 0.1.2.x alongside a Named variant.  There _is_ a problem if the
Named one is missing: as now, clients will react to the nickname by
warning and using one of the unnamed servers.  But that's as bad as
current behavior IMO.

Peter: would you like to patch the results of this thread into
proposal 122, so I can get started implementing it?

Nick Mathewson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list