Re: Proposal: GETINFO controller option for connection information

[Paul Syverson <syverson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx> 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?