Proposal: GETINFO controller option for connection information
syverson at itd.nrl.navy.mil
Mon Jun 28 22:08:13 UTC 2010
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:59:07PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Damian Johnson <atagar1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Nick. Thanks for the comments!
> >> * IN_TYPE/OUT_TYPE talk about the type of an inbound/outbound
> >> "connection." Do you mean circuits, or connections on the circuits?
> >> Either way I'm confused. For example, a control connection is never
> >> attached to a circuit at all.
> > Yea, that isn't really appropriate and was making the spec messier than it
> > needed to be. Replaced with a single TYPE parameter to indicate the
> > placement in the circuit (guard/bridge, relay, exit, or one-hop in case
> > they're allowing them).
> Hm. But we don't necessarily know this. Our "are we client-facing"
> tests are approximate, not certain, and the only way to tell whether
> we're intermediate or exiting is to wait and see if we're told to
> exit. In fact, the leaky-pipe topology means that we're potentially
> intermediate _and_ exiting on a single circuit.
Wah. I know I'm well out of the development loop, but is leaky-pipe
topology ever currently used and if so for what?
More information about the tor-dev