Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

> > - Directory guards are 85% of total current guard bandwidth. > - Guards with ORPorts on 80/443 are 42% of total current guard bandwidth. > - Guards on IPv6 are 20% of total current guard bandwidth. > - Guards both on 80/443 and on IPv6 are 8% of total current guard >

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

Ola Bini writes: > [ text/plain ] > Hey, > >> > - OrPort vs DirPort >> > ORPort is used for regular circuits, while DirPort is used when getting >> > directory information. We need to interpret reachable stuff >> > differently depending on the purpose. >> > >> >> I'm not

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

> On 7 Apr 2016, at 23:53, George Kadianakis wrote: > > Here is a non-smart thing we could do: We could prepopulate our sampled guards > list with all the possible guard types. So we include an 80/443 bridge and an > IPv6 bridge and an IPv6 bridge that is also on 80/443,

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

Hey, > On second thought, I think using a single USED_GUARDS list here should be OK > for now. That's also what Tor is doing right now, so this behavior can't be > worse than the status quo. > > On this note, we should add a small "Discussion" section on the proposal and > briefly mention these

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

George Kadianakis writes: > [ text/plain ] > Ola Bini writes: > >> [ text/plain ] >> Hey, >> >>> >>> >>> That's not very nice because the USED_GUARDS set that was created when >>> ClientsUseIPv6 or FascistFirewall were on will have reduced

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

Hi, > > teor: > or "delete you state file" > Cleaning the state file is a good idea, presuming there aren't any other bits in other package files. > > set "UseEntryGuards". > The right interface is all that is needed (: Wordlife, Spencer

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

> On 6 Apr 2016, at 23:42, Ola Bini wrote: > >>> Yeah, we talked about that yesterday. Our suggestion is to do >>> something like this: >>> - if the filtered/reduced sample-set contains less than X (5?) guards, >>> expand SAMPLED guards using the regular process. >>> - If

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

Adding tor-dev. On 04/06/2016 08:53 AM, Tania Silva wrote: > Hey, > >> Yeah, we talked about that yesterday. Our suggestion is to do >> something like this: >> - if the filtered/reduced sample-set contains less than X (5?) guards, >> expand SAMPLED guards using the regular

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

Hi, > No, clients typically tunnel directory requests over the ORPort when they can. > This is better for anonymity. > > But they will fall back to the DirPort in some circumstances. > And relays use the DirPort all the time. Ah, thanks - that's helpful, > It's worse for the risk of guard

Re: [tor-dev] Update on 259

Hey, > > - OrPort vs DirPort > > ORPort is used for regular circuits, while DirPort is used when getting > > directory information. We need to interpret reachable stuff > > differently depending on the purpose. > > > > I'm not actually sure what the comment means here. This was more for our own