For example, these two pairs of relays that came online yesterday: * https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0ED2D734F295427E5A3719FA7B9985C3358391...
* https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132...
and
* https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132... * https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/2FF21F475C2E668C23DB7625A9D45B52591B30...
(Hat-tip to Sean Saito for pointing these out.)
No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this issue. I can go either way.
-V
Aren't family members configured in torrc? On Jan 26, 2016 11:01 PM, "Virgil Griffith" i@virgil.gr wrote:
For example, these two pairs of relays that came online yesterday:
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0ED2D734F295427E5A3719FA7B9985C3358391...
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132...
and
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132...
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/2FF21F475C2E668C23DB7625A9D45B52591B30...
(Hat-tip to Sean Saito for pointing these out.)
No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this issue. I can go either way.
-V _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
They are indeed configured in torrc. The question is whether two relays on the same IP# *should* be in the same family even if they aren't.
-V
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016, Tristan supersluether@gmail.com wrote:
Aren't family members configured in torrc? On Jan 26, 2016 11:01 PM, "Virgil Griffith" <i@virgil.gr javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','i@virgil.gr');> wrote:
For example, these two pairs of relays that came online yesterday:
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0ED2D734F295427E5A3719FA7B9985C3358391...
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132...
and
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132...
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/2FF21F475C2E668C23DB7625A9D45B52591B30...
(Hat-tip to Sean Saito for pointing these out.)
No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this issue. I can go either way.
-V _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tor-relays@lists.torproject.org'); https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith i@virgil.gr 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.
On 27 Jan 2016, at 18:19, grarpamp grarpamp@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith i@virgil.gr 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
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor teor2345@gmail.com wrote:
Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
Maybe a step further in this would be to autoextend manually declared families with all relays running on the same IPs of any relays in the family. Dunno how complex or how useful this would be. It could at least fix-up some outdated or missed declarations.
On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:20, Roman Mamedov rm@romanrm.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor teor2345@gmail.com wrote:
Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
Maybe a step further in this would be to autoextend manually declared families with all relays running on the same IPs of any relays in the family. Dunno how complex or how useful this would be. It could at least fix-up some outdated or missed declarations.
In Tor, or OnionOO?
Tor already does this using the IP address whenever a path is built. If Tor added it on the relay side, then we'd bloat descriptors for no reason.
If OnionOO added it, it would save OnionOO clients some work.
Tim
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B
teor at blah dot im OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[Removing metrics-team@ to avoid cross posting.]
On 28/01/16 21:22, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:20, Roman Mamedov rm@romanrm.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor teor2345@gmail.com wrote:
Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
Maybe a step further in this would be to autoextend manually declared families with all relays running on the same IPs of any relays in the family. Dunno how complex or how useful this would be. It could at least fix-up some outdated or missed declarations.
In Tor, or OnionOO?
Tor already does this using the IP address whenever a path is built. If Tor added it on the relay side, then we'd bloat descriptors for no reason.
Agreed.
If OnionOO added it, it would save OnionOO clients some work.
Let's consider this. I'm pasting current definitions of related Onionoo fields here, so that people can follow more easily:
- "effective_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that are in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay. These relays are part of this relay's family and they consider this relay to be part of their family. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
- "alleged_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that are not in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay. These relays are part of this relay's family but they don't consider this relay to be part of their family. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
- "indirect_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that are not in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay but that can be reached by following effective, mutual family relationships starting at this relay. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
Now, from reading this thread I can see us adding or extending the following fields:
- Extend "effective_family" to also include relays on the same IP address or in the same /16. I'd rather not want to do this, because we wouldn't be able to say whether that other relay is in a mutually declared family relationship or just runs on a nearby IP address.
- Add new "network_family" field with fingerprints of all relays in the same /16. Plausible, but duplicates fingerprints that are already in "effective_family".
- Add new "network_family" field with only those fingerprints of relays in the same /16 that are not contained in "effective_family". "Tor considers these relays to be part of your relay's family, because they have similar enough network addresses. If you are running them, please consider setting the family option." Plausible, though not trivial to grasp without further explanation.
- Add new "extended_network_family" field with fingerprints of relays in the same /16 as this relay or relays in "effective_family" and "indirect_family", except for fingerprints in those two fields. Also plausible for the Roster use case to identify all relays close to the family that the user may have omitted in their family definitions. Not sure if this is necessary.
- Add new "abandoned_family" field with fingerprints of relays that declare this relay to be part of their family but that are not contained in this relay's family declaration. Looks like we never considered this field before, but it might be useful to help relay operators fix their family declarations.
Which of these fields would be useful to have? "All of them" is not a good response, because we shouldn't make Onionoo responses bigger if nobody uses the new data. But I'm happy to discuss use cases and then add new fields as required.
All the best, Karsten
I withdraw my desire this proposal. In Roster we wouldn't want these /16 network families---we just wanted to collapse some relays together when we reliably believe they have the same operator, and there's no reason to believe the majority of relays within a /16 are owned by the same person.
Ergo, Roster will forgo this kind of merging.
-V
On Friday, 5 February 2016, Karsten Loesing karsten@torproject.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[Removing metrics-team@ to avoid cross posting.]
On 28/01/16 21:22, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:20, Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net javascript:;>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
Maybe a step further in this would be to autoextend manually declared families with all relays running on the same IPs of any relays in the family. Dunno how complex or how useful this would be. It could at least fix-up some outdated or missed declarations.
In Tor, or OnionOO?
Tor already does this using the IP address whenever a path is built. If Tor added it on the relay side, then we'd bloat descriptors for no reason.
Agreed.
If OnionOO added it, it would save OnionOO clients some work.
Let's consider this. I'm pasting current definitions of related Onionoo fields here, so that people can follow more easily:
- "effective_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that
are in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay. These relays are part of this relay's family and they consider this relay to be part of their family. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
- "alleged_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that
are not in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay. These relays are part of this relay's family but they don't consider this relay to be part of their family. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
- "indirect_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that
are not in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay but that can be reached by following effective, mutual family relationships starting at this relay. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
Now, from reading this thread I can see us adding or extending the following fields:
- Extend "effective_family" to also include relays on the same IP
address or in the same /16. I'd rather not want to do this, because we wouldn't be able to say whether that other relay is in a mutually declared family relationship or just runs on a nearby IP address.
- Add new "network_family" field with fingerprints of all relays in
the same /16. Plausible, but duplicates fingerprints that are already in "effective_family".
- Add new "network_family" field with only those fingerprints of
relays in the same /16 that are not contained in "effective_family". "Tor considers these relays to be part of your relay's family, because they have similar enough network addresses. If you are running them, please consider setting the family option." Plausible, though not trivial to grasp without further explanation.
- Add new "extended_network_family" field with fingerprints of relays
in the same /16 as this relay or relays in "effective_family" and "indirect_family", except for fingerprints in those two fields. Also plausible for the Roster use case to identify all relays close to the family that the user may have omitted in their family definitions. Not sure if this is necessary.
- Add new "abandoned_family" field with fingerprints of relays that
declare this relay to be part of their family but that are not contained in this relay's family declaration. Looks like we never considered this field before, but it might be useful to help relay operators fix their family declarations.
Which of these fields would be useful to have? "All of them" is not a good response, because we shouldn't make Onionoo responses bigger if nobody uses the new data. But I'm happy to discuss use cases and then add new fields as required.
All the best, Karsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWtGubAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrwDEIAMN/JCYq99J/H3AZKqkt3pLe qvWP8uQxBfbnmxwOhOq4IFFCa1o+FpITOxmhZEuxVNGaqszBqSxFpDn62pjK8YCS 7Wi2IqUoZDIdHwLsJMgfrn+/HH4BoctTu0PzHWsZsmcdjJqPr8R+AP7WRZN3SM2W /ML8AULWIwSUVmIfKD3iYM9RbFfxFeCARirDsAxC394z2ei06git4sJA5cSROx35 9IzqdpPyJoplYBRk7INCmr0bHNXvsIRODQ0n0QIJrIl1ESHpqhsy13fTo/1ndlKR BUM2XCao0HABwpdBOrinfpybuGUSPXjrqw8expkUE+w2VuzOdkkNod1J3wgFyXc= =KM0S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org javascript:; https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On 5 Feb 2016, at 21:28, Virgil Griffith i@virgil.gr wrote:
I withdraw my desire this proposal. In Roster we wouldn't want these /16 network families---we just wanted to collapse some relays together when we reliably believe they have the same operator, and there's no reason to believe the majority of relays within a /16 are owned by the same person.
There are known cases where relays on the same IP address happen to be using the same provider and external NAT, but have different operators.
Ergo, Roster will forgo this kind of merging.
-V
On Friday, 5 February 2016, Karsten Loesing <karsten@torproject.org mailto:karsten@torproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[Removing metrics-team@ to avoid cross posting.]
On 28/01/16 21:22, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:20, Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net mailto:rm@romanrm.net javascript:;>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345@gmail.com mailto:teor2345@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
Maybe a step further in this would be to autoextend manually declared families with all relays running on the same IPs of any relays in the family. Dunno how complex or how useful this would be. It could at least fix-up some outdated or missed declarations.
In Tor, or OnionOO?
Tor already does this using the IP address whenever a path is built. If Tor added it on the relay side, then we'd bloat descriptors for no reason.
Agreed.
If OnionOO added it, it would save OnionOO clients some work.
Let's consider this. I'm pasting current definitions of related Onionoo fields here, so that people can follow more easily:
- "effective_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that
are in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay. These relays are part of this relay's family and they consider this relay to be part of their family. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
- "alleged_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that
are not in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay. These relays are part of this relay's family but they don't consider this relay to be part of their family. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
- "indirect_family": Array of $-prefixed fingerprints of relays that
are not in an effective, mutual family relationship with this relay but that can be reached by following effective, mutual family relationships starting at this relay. Omitted if empty or if descriptor containing this information cannot be found.
Now, from reading this thread I can see us adding or extending the following fields:
- Extend "effective_family" to also include relays on the same IP
address or in the same /16. I'd rather not want to do this, because we wouldn't be able to say whether that other relay is in a mutually declared family relationship or just runs on a nearby IP address.
- Add new "network_family" field with fingerprints of all relays in
the same /16. Plausible, but duplicates fingerprints that are already in "effective_family".
- Add new "network_family" field with only those fingerprints of
relays in the same /16 that are not contained in "effective_family". "Tor considers these relays to be part of your relay's family, because they have similar enough network addresses. If you are running them, please consider setting the family option." Plausible, though not trivial to grasp without further explanation.
- Add new "extended_network_family" field with fingerprints of relays
in the same /16 as this relay or relays in "effective_family" and "indirect_family", except for fingerprints in those two fields. Also plausible for the Roster use case to identify all relays close to the family that the user may have omitted in their family definitions. Not sure if this is necessary.
- Add new "abandoned_family" field with fingerprints of relays that
declare this relay to be part of their family but that are not contained in this relay's family declaration. Looks like we never considered this field before, but it might be useful to help relay operators fix their family declarations.
Which of these fields would be useful to have? "All of them" is not a good response, because we shouldn't make Onionoo responses bigger if nobody uses the new data. But I'm happy to discuss use cases and then add new fields as required.
All the best, Karsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org http://gpgtools.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWtGubAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrwDEIAMN/JCYq99J/H3AZKqkt3pLe qvWP8uQxBfbnmxwOhOq4IFFCa1o+FpITOxmhZEuxVNGaqszBqSxFpDn62pjK8YCS 7Wi2IqUoZDIdHwLsJMgfrn+/HH4BoctTu0PzHWsZsmcdjJqPr8R+AP7WRZN3SM2W /ML8AULWIwSUVmIfKD3iYM9RbFfxFeCARirDsAxC394z2ei06git4sJA5cSROx35 9IzqdpPyJoplYBRk7INCmr0bHNXvsIRODQ0n0QIJrIl1ESHpqhsy13fTo/1ndlKR BUM2XCao0HABwpdBOrinfpybuGUSPXjrqw8expkUE+w2VuzOdkkNod1J3wgFyXc= =KM0S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org javascript:; https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B
teor at blah dot im OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
grarpamp -
Karsten Loesing -
Roman Mamedov -
Tim Wilson-Brown - teor -
Tristan -
Virgil Griffith