[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #3785 [Tor Relay]: Revise/refine proposal 118 and implement it
#3785: Revise/refine proposal 118 and implement it
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: ln5 | Owner: nickm
Type: task | Status: accepted
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.3.x-final
Component: Tor Relay | Version:
Keywords: | Parent: #3563
Points: | Actualpoints:
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by nickm):
Replying to [comment:4 ln5]:
> How bad is it to advertise an addr:port without self-testing it first?
For a bridge, bad, but not terrible.
Replying to [comment:5 ln5]:
> The proposal seems to have discontinued the 'auto' argument for the
> ORPort option. Wouldn't that break old configuration pretty badly?
I think that's an oversight; we should continue to support auto. I'll try
to edit the proposal soon in light of that and other comments.
Replying to [comment:6 ln]:
> But 'ORPort <port>' binds only to the IPv4 address
Hm. What about ORPort <port> IPv6Only , or ORPort [::]:<port> ?
One of the hard-to-implement thing in proposal 186 is the ability to have
one ORPort directory specify more than one actual port; it will break the
current one-to-one relation between listener sockets, port_cfg_t entries,
and ORPort lines. (So it's _doable_, but not necessarily fun.)
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3785#comment:7>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs