Re: Proposal: Separate streams across circuits by destination port or destination host

[Robert Hogan <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 25 August 2010 22:12:28 Robert Hogan wrote:
> 
> - We can achieve some/a lot of the benefits sought by the proposal if we
> isolate streams based on the information provided by the socks request
> itself. The things people have suggested are:
>   1 Socks authentication info (username/pass)
>   2 Socks listener address/port
>   3 Socks protocol
>   4 Socks client IP
>   5 Info in /proc/pid/cmdline garnered from the client's port number

So after more discussion this list now looks like:

   1 Socks authentication info (username/pass)
   2 Socks listener address/port
   3 Socks protocol
   4 Socks client IP
   5 Destination Port (if it is in the LongLivedPort list)

And the consensus is it should be on by default.

Adding number 5 to the list would allow users to isolate streams by port 80 
if they chose to designate it a LongLivedPort. I'm not sure if that means 
we should leave it out of the list, if we should defend against 'invalid' 
LongLivedPorts, or if it's something we are happy to allow.

I think the list above allows stream isolation on requests over TransPort 
and NATDPort - at least to the extent that it will isolate streams on the 
basis of 2, 4 and 5 (if applicable).