#572: fallback-consensus file impractical to use --------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Reporter: arma | Type: enhancement Status: new | Priority: major Milestone: Tor: 0.2.4.x-final | Component: Tor Client Version: 0.2.0.9-alpha | Resolution: None Keywords: performance bootstrap dos-resistance | Parent: #2664 Points: | Actualpoints: --------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment(by nickm): I'd love to see a solution here. I think that we might want to step back and think about whether fallbackconsensus is such a great idea, though. To make it work right, I think we'd need to get proposal 146 done, so that clients that try to bootstrap from the fallback consensus do so with a plausible list of routers. An alternative approach is just to ship clients with a list of directory sources (IP:ORPort:IDDigest) and generate such list manually and/or via some metrics-based process. Currently, an authority's IP:Port is used for about 4 things: 1. A place for clients to fetch initial directory info. 2. A place for servers to upload their descriptors. 3. A place for directory caches to fetch up-to-date directory info. 4. A place for authorities to contact one another for voting. It seems to me that the first usage about is probably generating the lion's share of the load on authorities, followed probably by the third. Decoupling the first usage is the main way to achieve this ticket's goals, in my eyes. I have no horse in the race of whether fallbackconsensus is the right way to do that; it may well not be. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/572#comment:19> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online _______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs
