[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #6790 [Tor Directory Authority]: Write proposal draft for directory mirrors to accept, aggregate and hand off descriptors to dirauths
#6790: Write proposal draft for directory mirrors to accept, aggregate and hand
off descriptors to dirauths
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: mikeperry | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.4.x-final
Component: Tor Directory Authority | Version:
Keywords: MikePerry201210d, proposal-needed | Parent: #2664
Points: | Actualpoints:
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Changes (by mikeperry):
* keywords: MikePerry201210, proposal-needed => MikePerry201210d,
proposal-needed
Comment:
Replying to [comment:13 nickm]:
> I think that the right answer might be more roles then: not shoving
functionality around among existing roles.
>
> IOW, directory authorities must currently:
> 1. Receive descriptors that routers publish
> 2. Test servers
> 3. Vote
> 4. Produce a consensus
> 5. Let mirrors fetch that consensus and the (micro)descriptors that it
refers to
> 6. Let clients without a valid consensus bootstrap onto the network.
There's also "7. Participate in the relay network." That is Sebastian's
#3023.
> Right now, we're seeing load problems from 6 and to a lesser extent 5.
We hope to solve 6 with #572 or its successor. We might also try to
offload 2. The functionality of 3 and 4 seems to be inherent in what
directory authorities do. Solving 5 does not currently seem to have a
ticket.
Can you explain more about 5 being unsolved? I haven't been following
microdesc development. You mean the only way to get microdescriptors right
now is from the dirauths directly?
> If we got the directory authorities role down to only 4 and 5, that
would let us actually have directory servers ''not be relays at all'',
which would sure help with the load issues.
Yes. This is what I'm going for. I actually want it to be possible to at
least temporarily enter into a mode where the only responsibilities for
the dirauths are 3, 4, and 5, and function in a backup capacity for 2, but
only for relays not already in the consensus.
> This ticket is about solving 1. I'm actually loosely in favor of
decoupling the role of "receive and sanity-check descriptors" from the
rest of what authorities do, but I don't think it's as critical as
figuring out how to offload 5 and 6. I could chance my mind about that if
data appears.
Actually, I think the proposal would have to discuss roles 1 and 2
together. I will try to do so in my draft.
I think with #572 solving role 6, and #3023's goal of eliminating role 7,
we're then down to my goal of a mode where the dirauths only participate
in roles 3, 4 and 5, and sometimes 2.
Thanks for helping to clarify the direction on this, Nick. The main reason
I started this in a trac ticket as opposed to going straight to proposal
phase was so that we could get assumptions and framing like this nailed
down.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6790#comment:14>
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