Re: [tor-dev] Proposal: Load Balancing with Overhead Parameters

Subject: Re: [tor-dev] Proposal: Load Balancing with Overhead Parameters

From: Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:26:36 +1100

Delivery-date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:26:56 -0500

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:message-id :references:to; bh=6sQG5/osIc3NnjF0qeaIT/psEV49lJzHW5u7sXT3rCE=; b=Zjr4wrjCju58bloIo0hCpi1xBG6ywiZcUzpu5xnhtVFbF5BlN8bAZASTPVD+GHAFLs onU7/93wxo/7Iec0jaXI+Y0O5VcIZnCgWbCN5h1b5Wf1zxKYf8+ZhkgWsP73vW0/wYJC UyjNarymGKB4t1c85Z0UEWju/04HVZfqWedfJzwX3gZAepzSdnduNbbe3vsvK2Yk6az/ HyDIHv9iTVScvwiueqsyuIA3X9pnHkpW85bEj9ZIEIILV0JlTphpoIai5xFHXc4JhIYM Ft8KpQunk7OwHL3uqJXlgYi2hgWtxqV3Dcgd4WK8gGIsQHfMg1ySZLGJCiMbhXMxu0Or 9QVg==

In-reply-to: <20160114160747.GA7479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

List-archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/>

List-help: <mailto:tor-dev-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>

List-id: discussion regarding Tor development <tor-dev.lists.torproject.org>

List-post: <mailto:tor-dev@lists.torproject.org>

List-subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev>, <mailto:tor-dev-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-dev>, <mailto:tor-dev-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>

References: <20160112135350.GI3251@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <09DC3587-178F-46AD-9900-45E7A6ED9489@xxxxxxxxx> <20160114160747.GA7479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reply-to: tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sender: "tor-dev" <tor-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:07, Mike Perry <mikeperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim Wilson-Brown - teor:
On 13 Jan 2016, at 00:53, Mike Perry <mikeperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. Overview

For padding overhead due to Proposals 251 and 254, and changes to hidden
service path selection in Proposal 247, it will be useful to be able to
specify a pair of parameters that represents the additional traffic
present on Guard and Middle nodes due to these changes.

I don't know if it's worth noting that proposals 252 and 260 (the Single Onion
Services variants) will reduce traffic to guard and middle nodes, as they
remove the nodes between the hidden service and client-controlled endpoint
(rendezvous point in Rendezvous Single Onion Services, extend point in
Single Onion Services).

I think these will just be part of the overhead parameters?

Probably, though this will require us to have some estimation on the
amount of network traffic using these services. Will they be broken out
separately in the extra-info hidden service stats?

Logged as #18082.

https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18082

Since Rendezvous Single Onion Services (RSOS) and

Single Onion Services (SOS) have the same path length, I think they can

be combined into a single extra-info statistic, rather than being split into

separate groups.

I don't know what impact separating HS and (R)SOS has on anonymity, but my

gut feeling is that it should be OK as large site operators are keen to adopt

(R)SOS.

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev