Nick Mathewson <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:01 AM, George Kadianakis <[email protected]> > wrote: > [...] > >> I like. That was what I wanted to do originally, but I then discarded >> it as non-future-proof enough. >> >> Let's pump it up to "The body of the 'RATE_LIMIT' command should carry >> two integers describing 'bytes per second'. Each of them is 8 bytes, >> big-endian...". >> >> That comes to 18.45 exabytes per second, which should be quite >> future-proof. > > If we're trying that hard to be future-proof, let's have separate read > and write caps, in case we need them someday. >
I see what you mean :) OK, the updated proposal is doing it with _4_ bytes, big-endian. The Tor developers of the future, can make a 'RATE_LIMIT_2' command. > > <snip> > >> I also agree that there should be a way for the transport to report to >> Tor how many bytes it's actually using. >> >> Specifically, my proposal does *not* specify how transport proxies >> pass usage statistics to tor. This is quite needed at the moment. > > We could have a similar BYTES_USED command sent from the proxy to Tor. > Probably we should reserve a range of command values for use by > commands like this where the transport proxy is reporting stuff to Tor > that isn't in response to a command from Tor. > I decided to not include any statistics information in this version of the proposal. Let's do that as part of #5040 ASAP. Inlining the updated proposal in my next mail. _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
