Re: problems with the aci range too small?

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Paul Syverson wrote:
> Mat is correct about what the OR papers say. And, I think that is
> essentially the same as what Roger is suggesting.

Er. Essentially the same qualitatively; but we can handle more circuits
my way. :)

> The only issue I can think of as a potential problem is router twins.
> If the aci space is allocated for each virtual router, then we would
> need another bit or two to indicate which actual router is assigning
> the name. But, I don't think that is (or should be for this and other
> reasons) how router twins are handled.

Hm. Currently there would be no problem -- when the circuit is created
it chooses which of the twins to use, and after choosing it chooses an
appropriate aci for that connection (if you're talking to two twins then
you have two connections open).

Even if later we want to do spread-spectrum things (eg spitting packets
for a single conversation over several twins) or duplicate circuits for
extra reliability, I think the right answer is to build each circuit
separately with its own aci, and the reconstruction at the exit node
would be at a higher level.

So I don't think twins will be a problem here.

--Roger