In celebration of 1.10.1, we had a mini-hackfest yesterday (it was so
"mini" that it was actually just Daira and dawuud and I in my
livingroom). We managed to:
* Design most of the necessary command-line arguments, tahoe.cfg syntax,
and Foolscap API changes necessary to remove IP-address autodet
So Tahoe's current default, when you create a client+server node with
"tahoe create-node", is to:
* allocate an unused TCP listening port number
* run iputil (or ifconfig/etc) to figure out all your IP addresses
* build ADDR:PORT foolscap "connection hints" for all of them
* concatenate the hints
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:31:16PM -0700, Brian Warner wrote:
> [snip]
This all sounds great to me! But there are a few edge cases which shouldn't be
forgotten:
* It could be desirable to connect to a grid (possibly of non-onion storage
servers) using Tor to reach all of the servers *except*
What would happen if the foolscap transport plugin state directory was
removed but the tahoe.cfg config file remained intact?
In that error case when the Tor-Foolscap plugin is used, the correct
behavior would be to exit with an error telling the user that the
Tahoe-LAFS configuration file express
yay! i'm excited for this native Tor integration project.
The default Tahoe-LAFS+Txtorcon behavior will persist hidden service
key material to a private client config directory... however I'm sure
that ephemeral storage nodes would easily be possible as well;
I envision ephemeral Tahoe-LAFS onion
On 6/18/15 2:56 PM, David Stainton wrote:
> What would happen if the foolscap transport plugin state directory was
> removed but the tahoe.cfg config file remained intact?
With the implementation I'd been considering, it would basically just
re-generate the listener. If that resulted in a differen
On 6/18/15 1:02 PM, Leif Ryge wrote:
> * It could be desirable to connect to a grid (possibly of non-onion
>storage servers) using Tor to reach all of the servers *except* the
>user's own servers, which are reachable via their LAN or VPN.
How would a client know which ones are "mine" vs
On Thursday 18 June 2015 12:31:16 Brian Warner wrote:
> thoughts?
In the latest release I added a feature allowing specifying a hostname of AUTO
to use autodetection in combination with a fixed hostname. We could keep AUTO
as an option but require the user to specify it explicitly in tub.locatio
