On 06/11/2018 01:58, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:38:33AM +1000, teor wrote: >>> so if we could ask the guard for >>> regular keepalives, we might be able to promise that the CPU will wake >>> once every keepalive interval, unless the guard connection's lost, in >>> which case it will wake once every 15 minutes. But keepalives from the >>> guard would require a protocol change, which would take time to roll >>> out, and would let the guard know (if it doesn't already) that the >>> client's running on Android. >> >> Tor implemented netflow padding in 0.3.1.1-alpha (May 2017): >> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/padding-spec.txt >> >> Connection padding may act like a keepalive, we should consider this >> use case as we improve our padding designs. > > Relays already send a keepalive (padding) cell every 5 minutes: see > the KeepalivePeriod config option. That's separate from any of the new > netflow padding. Clients send them too. Ah, thanks! I didn't realise keepalives were sent from relays to clients as well as vice versa. That gives us a max sleep of 5 minutes when a guard connection's open and 15 minutes when it's not, which is a great improvement. Would it have much impact on the network to reduce the default keepalive interval to, say, one minute? > The netflow padding is more interesting for the Briar case, since it > comes way way more often than keepalives: so if you're trying for deep > sleep but you wake up for network activity every several seconds, you'll > probably end up sad. Unfortunately we've disabled netflow padding due to bandwidth and battery usage. Cheers, Michael
Attachment:
0x11044FD19FC527CC.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev