[tor-dev] an alternate MyFamily definition
tagnaq at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 17:03:06 UTC 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
when requesting a new group by feature for compass  (#6662 ) I
discussed with Karsten about how to handle asynchronous/overlapping
> Here's an example. Assume we have three relays: A, B, and C. These
> relays state the following family relationships:
> A: A, B B: A, B, C C: B, C
> We require mutual agreement about being in the same family, so we
> could either come up with family A, B or with family B, C. Which
> one is correct?
I proposed to go with
family = A, B, C
because there is a mutual agreement between A<->B and B<->C.
A and C agreed to be in a family with B, and B agreed to be in a
family with A and C.
Such configurations can be found in the wild mostly due to incomplete
MyFamily configurations on relays in big families.
As every big relay operator knows configuring families is a
non-trivial effort with a growing number of relays.
Now I thought about it and wanted to suggest this MyFamily
interpretation as an alternate approach to the fully mutual setup
where *every* relay must be reconfigured as opposed to just two of them.
This would reduce the configuration effort required when adding a new
relay to *two* relays regardless of how many relays are in your family.
Now, the MyFamily configuration overhead for big families is a well
known problem so I suppose someone else did already propose this approach?
What do you think about it?
a additional example to make this clearer:
A: A, B, C
B: A, B, C
C: A, B, C
D: A, B, C, D
family = A, B, C
A family member must have a *mutual* agreement with at least *one* node.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the tor-dev