On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:36 PM, René Mayrhofer <r...@ins.jku.at> wrote:
> That is exactly what we have patched our local Tor node to do, although
> with a different (slightly hacky, so the patch will be an RFC type)
> approach by marking real exit traffic with a ToS flag to leave the
> decision of what to do with it to the next layer (in our setup Linux
> kernel based policy routing on the same host). There may be a much
> better approach do achieve this goal. I plan on writing up our setup
> (and the rationale behind it) along with the "works for me but is not
> ready for upstream inclusion" patch tomorrow.

Part of rationale could be 'Hi bigwigs... stats say we helped 83GB traffic
move strictly to clearnet today without severe issue, please keep us funded.'
Another part is simply traffic engineering bandwidth cost, and possibly
in your edu case I2 routing. ToS tagging is interesting approach. Though
I think for more common operators at hosters, the IP/port approach would
work better. Not to say both cannot be added :)
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Reply via email to