Re: [tor-bugs] #21637 [Metrics/Onionoo]: Include both declared and reachable IPv6 OR addresses

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#21637: Include both declared and reachable IPv6 OR addresses
--------------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  teor                |          Owner:  metrics-team
     Type:  enhancement         |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium              |      Milestone:
Component:  Metrics/Onionoo     |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal              |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  metrics-2017, ipv6  |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                      |         Points:
 Reviewer:                      |        Sponsor:
--------------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by karsten):

 Replying to [comment:9 teor]:
 > Replying to [comment:8 karsten]:
 > > Replying to [comment:3 karsten]:
 > > > Replying to [comment:2 teor]:
 > > > > It would be nice to have the IPv6 address from the descriptor, and
 then we can synthesise a flag if it's missing from the consensus (or
 different).
 > > >
 > > > Yes, makes sense.
 > >
 > > How about we add a new field "unreachable_or_addresses" that is an
 optional array of strings and that contains an "Array of IPv4 or IPv6
 addresses and TCP ports or port lists where the relay claims to accept
 onion-routing connections but that the directory authorities failed to
 confirm as reachable. Addresses are in arbitrary order. IPv6 hex
 characters are all lower-case. Omitted if empty." If you can think of
 specifying this more clearly, please feel free to suggest a better text.
 And if you can think of a better way to include this data, just state it
 here.
 >
 > Do we need to explain:
 > * claims to accept onion-routing connections in its descriptor

 Sure, we can add the "in its descriptor" part.

 > * the directory authorities failed to confirm as reachable. (If a relay
 has an unreachable IPv4 address, the relay is removed from the consensus.
 If a relay has an unreachable IPv6 address, the relay is included in the
 consensus without the IPv6 address.)

 Yes, let's try to add that. Maybe we can make the distinction between
 primary and additional addresses rather than IPv4 and IPv6, just in case
 it will be possible to use an IPv6 address as primary address or an IPv4
 address as additional address in the future.

 > This is how things will work when authorities upgrade to 0.3.3, assuming
 we merge the IPv6 fixes in #20916.

 Hmm, can you elaborate how either the upgrade or the bugfix will affect us
 here?

 In any case, here's the edited specification with additional parts being
 written in italics:

 "Array of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses and TCP ports or port lists where the
 relay claims ''in its descriptor'' to accept onion-routing connections but
 that the directory authorities failed to confirm as reachable. ''Contains
 only additional addresses of a relay that are found unreachable, whereas
 relays with an unreachable primary address are excluded entirely.''
 Addresses are in arbitrary order. IPv6 hex characters are all lower-case.
 Omitted if empty."

 Please continue editing or suggesting as necessary!

 > > Regarding the suggested flag, I believe that that shouldn't be a relay
 flag like the existing ones, but it could be a custom notification like
 Atlas adds for relays running an non-recommended version. In other words,
 that's for Atlas land, not Onionoo land. Hope that matches your idea. If
 not, please elaborate.
 >
 > Sounds good to me.
 > This will help us prompt operators when their IPv6 is broken.

 Sounds great!

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/21637#comment:10>
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