Proposal: remove down routers from consensus

Geoffrey Goodell goodell at
Thu Jun 12 21:33:14 UTC 2008

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07:32PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
> > This would make the consensus document smaller -- I am not sure why the
> > consensus document includes routers that are not in dir/server/all, but
> > last I checked it did.  This fact bothers me more than the fact that
> > some of the routers are not Running.
> Sorry for being a bit dense here, but what's your point?  Who uses
> dir/server/all anyway?  And is there anything you have to say about this
> idea of making the consensus smaller?

Just that there is an inconsistency... if nobody uses dir/server/all,
then we ought to deprecate it because of the inconsistency.

Making consensus smaller seems like a fine idea in the abstract, though
I am not convinced that the size of this document is causing substantial Tor
bootstrapping delay or substantial traffic to Tor nodes.

It would also be interesting to know the extent to which routers are
down just intermittently... why not include them if they are going to be
back up in a minute?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list