[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?


On 27 Jan 2016, at 18:19, grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith <i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this
issue.  I can go either way.

Same IP excepting NAT is same box, kind of pointless if
they're not the same entity [1], err to caution and call it family,
put them in touch or encourage one or both to move or shutdown.

[1] Same entity would make sense if it was that entities
chosen / available way of binding multiple cpu cores to
tor instances, at least as far as the daemons go without
considering overall utility to tor.

Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
See nodelist_add_node_and_family() and addrs_in_same_network_family() in the tor source.

Whether OnionOO should reflect this is another matter.

Perhaps it could imitate Tor, and have a separate field called "network family"?

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