[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: accounting vs long lived nodes

David Vennik wrote:
> Michael Tharp wrote:
> ...
>>> If a node has bandwidth accounting, it should not be listed as long
>>> lived, because obviously it is likely to go down at any moment. I don't
>>> know if it will make that much difference to persistent session use on
>>> tor or not, but I think that it is only logical that bandwidth
>>> accounting should flag a 'not long lived' flag on the server information
>>> so that circuits to irc and ssh and other long lived connections don't
>>> use it. i know this might 'reduce anonymity' through the weakening of
>>> defenses against traffic analysis, but endless reconnections to irc
>>> servers, in my experience, is annoying both to myself and to the endless
>>> timeouts in the ORC which is exclusively tor-accessible.
>>> Regards,
>>> David Vennik
>> Doesn't tor already have this? Connections to certain ports (21, 22, 80
>> among others) that are typically reserved for long-lived connections
>> will avoid nodes that have been up for less than a certain amount of time.
> you are missing my point. if a node has bandwidth accounting configured
> it may stay up for a week but it could hibernate in five seconds. this
> is not helpful for users of persistent connection based services. some
> kind of flag on the server description suggesting that the server is
> liable to go offline at any time would be very useful for preventing the
> endless string of timeouts that using tor for these kinds of connections
> causes.
Why doesn't tor close the connection when the circuit fails?

They who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety
--Benjamin Franklin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature