On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:52:21 -0400 Roger Dingledine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 05:05:52PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: >> Okay. I don't know what tor is "supposed to" do about existing server >> connections and circuits when a SIGHUP results in ORPort being closed. >> However, I can see why the continuing operation of the client side of tor >> would make it desirable to maintain any currently open connections to its >> chosen entry guards. > >If you disable your ORPort and sighup, Tor will stop listening for >new connections on the ORPort, and it will send back destroy cells in >response to any new create cells it receives, and it will refuse any >new begin cells it receives, but otherwise it will continue to act like >a server with respect to circuits and streams that are already open. Thanks for the reply. Yes, that is what I had hoped was the case. > >> >In the past, I've seen that if the client has no activity, it does not >> >replace the connections. I have seen an idle tor client wind up with >> >no open sockets. >> >> Huh. Now that you mention it, I've suspected the same thing, though >> I've never checked it out very closely. Maybe Roger Dingledine could >> comment on whether this is actually the intended behavior and why it is or >> is not. > >Correct, that is intended behavior. > >See e.g. sec 2.1.1 of >https://tor.eff.org/svn/trunk/doc/spec/path-spec.txt > Ah. Thank you. So there is a one-hour threshhold of idle time for halting the preemptive circuit creation process. That can be a little bit inconvenient the next time you try to access something through the tor client, but I suppose it does save a chunk of server time and bandwidth. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************