Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/merge_requests/46 kind regards, nusenu -Neel ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

Hi David, On 2021-09-14 12:00, David Goulet wrote: On 14 Sep (11:31:02), Neel Chauhan wrote: 3. Implementation details The MiddleOnly flag can be assigned to relays whose IP addresses are configured at the directory authority level, similar to how the BadExit flag currently works. In

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

Hi Roger, On 2021-09-12 20:48, Roger Dingledine wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:17:37PM -0700, Neel Chauhan wrote: If a relay has the MiddleOnly flag, we do not allow it to be used for the following purposes: * Entry Guard While we're trying to be exhaustive here, "Direc

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

eX thanks, nusenu Makes sense. I also got confused by "LimitToMiddleOnlyNodes" versus "ExcludeMiddleNodes". -Neel ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

Hi, On 2021-09-12 12:31, nusenu wrote: Neel Chauhan: Also ensure this functionality is available to tor clients via a torrc option like "ExcludeExitNodes" can be used by tor clients as well. The torrc option for clients could be named "LimitToMiddleOnlyNodes" or similar

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

is also excluded. Makes sense. kind regards, nusenu No problem! -Neel ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

Only flag, then it's set for that relay. This is to prevent harm while all (or the majority of) dirauths give the relay that flag. -Neel Tidbits if you're interested (feel free to ignore if you aren't): [1] - The CenturyLink tech said they need to add capacity to the neighborhood&

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

Hi, I have an updated proposal which addresses your concerns, along with David Goulet's comments on GitLab. On 2021-09-07 12:47, s7r wrote: Hi Neel, Please add a "MOTIVATION" section and explain in detail why is this needed for the network/heath team and how will it impro

[tor-dev] Proposal 334: A flag to mark Relays as middle-only

Hi, As asked in the torspec MR [1] (42) for ticket [2] (40448), I propose a MiddleOnly dirauth flag for relays. The proposal, #334, is attached to this email, and is titled "A dirauth flag to mark Relays as Middle-only". Please comment and review it. Best, Neel Chauhan ===

[tor-dev] Has Core Tor Development Slowed? Or Are We Moving To Rust/arti?

however). Is there any other reason? Best, Neel Chauhan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

[tor-dev] Should we remove the ClientAutoIPv6ORPort option?

remove the ClientAutoIPv6ORPort option. Plus, we are going to do real Happy Eyeballs in Prop306, making ClientAutoIPv6ORPort redundant. Should we? -Neel Sources: [1] - https://blog.torproject.org/comment/281976#comment-281976 [2] - https://blog.torproject.org/comment/282102#comment-282102

Re: [tor-dev] Updates to Prop306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

the relay monitoring section. FYI the PR is here: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/98 However, I'm worried I removed something you may feel is necessary. -Neel On 2019-12-16 19:09, teor wrote: Hi Neel, On 17 Dec 2019, at 09:37, Neel Chauhan wrote: Hi tor-dev@ mailing list,

[tor-dev] Updates to Prop306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

/29801 Some of the older discussion on Prop306 can be seen on the thread here: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2019-August/013959.html Could some of you please review this proposal? -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ ___ tor-dev mailing

Re: [tor-dev] New Proposal 306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

Just a reminder that this proposal (Prop306) needs to be reviewed: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/87 -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ On 2019-07-21 10:30, n...@neelc.org wrote: Hi, I have split up the sections. The GitHub PR is here: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 306: Onion Balance Support for Onion Service v3

On 2019-07-25 12:35, Nick Mathewson wrote: Please use 307 for this; I think 306 is in use. That's me, the Prop306 guy! The title should be: "Proposal 307: Onion Balance Support for Onion Service v3" (Note the 307) -Neel ___ tor-d

Re: [tor-dev] New Proposal 306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

Hi, I have split up the sections. The GitHub PR is here: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/87 This was done as a fixup commit. If you want a new PR, please let me know. -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ On 2019-07-13 12:47, teor wrote: Hi, On July 11, 2019 12:37:03 AM UTC, n

Re: [tor-dev] New Proposal 306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

ason: better network performance) and have added this change anyways. Thanks, Neel Chauhan On 2019-07-02 07:15, teor wrote: Hi Iain, Thanks for your review! On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:39, Iain Learmonth wrote: Signed PGP part Hi, My comments are inline. Filename: 306-ipv6-happy-eyeba

Re: [tor-dev] New Proposal 306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

Hi teor, Thank you so much for your feedback. I have pushed your changes (and revert my changes to 000-index.txt) as fixup commits to the GitHub PR. Could you please review the new changes? Thank You, Neel Chauhan On 2019-06-25 23:33, teor wrote: Hi Neel, Thanks for this proposal. On 26

[tor-dev] New Proposal 306: A Tor Implementation of IPv6 Happy Eyeballs

://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/87 Thank You, Neel Chauhan === https://www.neelc.org/ ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Updating Proposal 299 (Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count)

flag to my GitHub PR and also mentioned other flags will come in the future. I like what you did here: I think having one option with extra flags is better than two options. Again, Thank you! Also, can we mark Prop299 as "Accepted" or is there any updates needed to this proposal?

Re: [tor-dev] Updating Proposal 299 (Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count)

kConsensus for #27647 When randomly choosing IPv4 or IPv6, set IPv6 probability based on IPv6 weight What do you think? Would you like to make these changes to this proposal? These additions sound good. I have added the "TrackFailures" flag to my GitHub PR and also mentioned other fla

[tor-dev] Updating Proposal 299 (Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count)

he updated (and attached) proposal? Also, if any of you have opinions on this proposal, please share them with me. -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/Filename: 299-ip-failure-count.txt Title: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count Author: Neel Chauhan Created: 25-Jan-2019 St

[tor-dev] Marking Proposal 299 (Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count) as Accepted

m assuming this proposal is okay. If it is, could someone please mark this proposal as Accepted? If not, what does this proposal require? Thank You, Neel Chauhan === https://www.neelc.org/ ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists

Re: [tor-dev] xp + T

at haven't been ported. -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ On 2019-02-12 12:24, Gedropi wrote: I would like to continue to get Tor updates but intend to keep Windows XP. How can I do it? Thanks ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 299: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count

eeded? Thank You, Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ February 5, 2019 11:40 PM, "teor" wrote: > Hi Neel, > > Thanks for your initial draft code, and this proposal. > > On February 6, 2019 12:26:40 AM UTC, Neel Chauhan wrote: > >> Hi tor-dev@ mailing list,

[tor-dev] Proposal 299: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count

/torspec.git/tree/proposals/299-ip-failure-count.txt Now that my proposal "Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count" is Open, I would really appreciate your opinions on this. Is it good, bad? Could it have any improvements? Best, Neel Chauhan === https://www

Re: [tor-dev] New Proposal: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count

Hi Nick, Thank you so much! Sorry if my proposal says "Draft". I believe my proposal is complete. Would it be possible to mark Prop299 as "Open"? Best, Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ January 28, 2019 5:32 AM, "Nick Mathewson" wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 201

Re: [tor-dev] New Proposal: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count

Hi teor, Thank you so much. I understand that it could take time from your in-person meeting. My proposal is here as a PR: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/53 Sorry if I am doing anything wrong, this is my first time doing a proposal. -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/ January 26

[tor-dev] New Proposal: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count

problems with it?). Thank You, Neel Chahan Filename: xxx-ip-failure-count.txt Title: Preferring IPv4 or IPv6 based on IP Version Failure Count Author: Neel Chauhan Created: 25-Jan-2019 Status: Draft Ticket: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/27491 1. Introduction As IPv4 address

[tor-dev] Reviewer for Bug #27491: Prefer IPv4 or IPv6 based on the number of failures

but I would really appreciate a reviewer. Thank You, Neel Chauhan === https://www.neelc.org/ ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

[tor-dev] Merging Tor Bug #27490

code ready for #27491 and #27492 but am awaiting the merger of #27490 before I submit them? I am also currently working on Bug #27647. Thank You, Neel Chauhan ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin

[tor-dev] How does Tor plan to deal with HTTP/3 (HTTP over QUIC)

Hi @tor-dev mailing list, How would Tor deal with HTTP/3 (a.k.a. HTTP over QUIC), considering that Tor is a TCP anonymizer, and HTTP over QUIC (and QUIC itseld) uses UDP? Would we need Tor to support UDP? Just QUIC? Thanks, Neel Chauhan === https://www.neelc.org

Re: [tor-dev] Reviewing Trac #18642 (Teach the OOM handler about the DNS cache)

Hi teor, Thank you so much for doing this! Best, Neel Chauhan === https://www.neelc.org/ August 5, 2018 9:58 PM, "teor" wrote: >> On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:41, n...@neelc.org wrote: >> >> Hi tor-dev@ mailing list, >> >> I have a patch for Bug #18642 (T

[tor-dev] Reviewing Trac #18642 (Teach the OOM handler about the DNS cache)

review, but after no response on the patch, he has emailed me that he's on vacation until the 16th of August, hence the reason why I'm emailing here. I am really keen on getting this patch in, and if there's any Tor developer here, could someone please review and merge it? Thank You