[tor-dev] Tor Proposal status updates: Feb 2015

[grarpamp]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Nick Mathewson <nickm at torproject.org> wrote:
> any time soon?  Other suggestions would be welcome.

Everything should have a set of applicable status so parties
know, possibly a pinger, in particular if the goal is to keep
certain things moving along. Even if you have to use RT/trac
to track them or work consistent header onto the git file, etc.

> Finally: if you've sent something to tor-dev or to me that should
> have a proposal number, but doesn't have one yet, please ping me
> again to remind me!

There are probably tickets out there being worked by parties
that function as proposals but happen not to be filed as numbered
git proposals. Maybe review the process between trac/git there.


> 144  Increase the diversity of circuits by detecting nodes
>      belonging the same provider
>
>      This is a version of the good idea, "Let's do routing in a way
>      that tries to keep from routing traffic through the same
>      provider too much!"  There are complex issues here that the
>      proposal doesn't completely address, but I think it might be a
>      fine idea for somebody to see how much more we know now than we
>      did in 2008, particularly in light of the relevant paper(s) by
>      Matt Edmann and Paul Syverson. (5/2011)

Similar to geoip data, there may be not just IP-to-AS data
available in monthly updates, but AS/BGP-path data from the
network side that could be included in tor. Consider making
a visit to the next NANOG, you may find insight/partners.
ie: If two or more nodes within the same AS, or along the
same route-path to the tier-1's are shown to not be beneficial
to tor, that data would be needed to exclude that situation.
Lots of other hypothesis/analysis could be performed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering