Re: Proposal: GETINFO controller option for connection information

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Paul Syverson
<syverson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:59:07PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Damian Johnson <atagar1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi Nick. Thanks for the comments!
>> >
>> >> * IN_TYPE/OUT_TYPE talk about the type of an inbound/outbound
>> >> "connection."  Do you mean circuits, or connections on the circuits?
>> >> Either way I'm confused.  For example, a control connection is never
>> >> attached to a circuit at all.
>> >
>> > Yea, that isn't really appropriate and was making the spec messier than it
>> > needed to be. Replaced with a single TYPE parameter to indicate the
>> > placement in the circuit (guard/bridge, relay, exit, or one-hop in case
>> > they're allowing them).
>>
>> Hm.  But we don't necessarily know this.  Our "are we client-facing"
>> tests are approximate, not certain, and the only way to tell whether
>> we're intermediate or exiting is to wait and see if we're told to
>> exit.  In fact, the leaky-pipe topology means that we're potentially
>> intermediate _and_ exiting on a single circuit.
>
> Wah. I know I'm well out of the development loop, but is leaky-pipe
> topology ever currently used and if so for what?

Well, I said "potentially". ;) The servers support it, but I don't
believe we use it.  If we did, it would probably be for fetching
directory info from a guard that happens also to be a cache, or
something like that.

-- 
Nick