Re: [tor-dev] Pre-draft of Proposal XXX: Extended ORPort and TransportControlPort

[George Kadianakis <desnacked@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:01 AM, George Kadianakis <desnacked@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I like. That was what I wanted to do originally, but I then discarded
>> it as non-future-proof enough.
>>
>> Let's pump it up to "The body of the 'RATE_LIMIT' command should carry
>> two integers describing 'bytes per second'. Each of them is 8 bytes,
>> big-endian...".
>>
>> That comes to 18.45 exabytes per second, which should be quite
>> future-proof.
>
> If we're trying that hard to be future-proof, let's have separate read
> and write caps, in case we need them someday.
>

I see what you mean :)
OK, the updated proposal is doing it with _4_ bytes, big-endian.

The Tor developers of the future, can make a 'RATE_LIMIT_2' command.

>
> <snip>
>
>> I also agree that there should be a way for the transport to report to
>> Tor how many bytes it's actually using.
>>
>> Specifically, my proposal does *not* specify how transport proxies
>> pass usage statistics to tor. This is quite needed at the moment.
>
> We could have a similar BYTES_USED command sent from the proxy to Tor.
>  Probably we should reserve a range of command values for use by
> commands like this where the transport proxy is reporting stuff to Tor
> that isn't in response to a command from Tor.
>

I decided to not include any statistics information in this version of
the proposal. Let's do that as part of #5040 ASAP.

Inlining the updated proposal in my next mail.
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev