On 11/10/12 11:50 AM, Tim Wilde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
>> 2.1. Better allocation of circuitID space
>>
>>In the current Tor design, circuit ID allocation is determined by
>>whose RSA public key has the lower modulus. How ridiculous!
>>Instead
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> 2.1. Better allocation of circuitID space
>
>In the current Tor design, circuit ID allocation is determined by
>whose RSA public key has the lower modulus. How ridiculous!
>Instead, I propose that when the version 4 link protoco
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:10:15PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> > > And if a very few do, maybe the solution is to
> > > move to a new TLS connection for those rare cases, rather than impose
> > > a 2-byte penalty on every cell in all c
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:10:15PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> > And if a very few do, maybe the solution is to
> > move to a new TLS connection for those rare cases, rather than impose
> > a 2-byte penalty on every cell in all cases.)
>
> Maaaybe, but I sure can't think of a sane testable desi
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:36:34PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> >Relays are running out of circuit IDs. It's time to make the field
> >bigger.
>
> I don't doubt the second sentence, but is the first sentence actually
> true? Do
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:36:34PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>Relays are running out of circuit IDs. It's time to make the field
>bigger.
I don't doubt the second sentence, but is the first sentence actually
true? Do we have any evidence / measurements / something here?
(Since circids
Filename: 214-longer-circids.txt
Title: Allow 4-byte circuit IDs in a new link protocol
Author: Nick Mathewson
Created: 6 Nov 2012
Status: Open
0. Overview
Relays are running out of circuit IDs. It's time to make the field
bigger.
1. Background and Motivation
Long ago, we thought tha
