> On 12 Feb 2019, at 04:49, Ian Goldberg wrote:
>
> Another issue not addressed by the current proposal is how to handle the
> "not all the relays have upgraded" problem.
And how to handle the onion service protocol (in detail).
Here's one possible migration path:
(I think it works, but we
Thanks for the proposal, Nick! I think it's definitely discussion in a
good direction!
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 11:18:12AM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> On 2019-02-05 18:44, Michael Rogers wrote:
> > Argh, I'm really sorry, I thought I'd reached the end of the proposal
> > but my questions were
Hi Nick,
This is awesome. We at NRL discussed a very similar concept starting
about a year and half ago after going over the PIR-Tor paper in a
reading group. We've left it mostly backburnered since then, though I
thought we had talked about it a few times to people at the Tor Dev
meetings.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:45 PM Nicholas Hopper wrote:
[...]
>
> This is very cool. One thing that comes to mind reading the proposal
> is that you will either want some fancy sorting scheme to try to make ranges
> (nearly) consistent across ENDIVEs, OR will want to have the Relay commit
> to
Hi Nick!
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
> Filename: 300-walking-onions.txt
> Title: Walking Onions: Scaling and Saving Bandwidth
> Author: Nick Mathewson
> Created: 5-Feb-2019
> Status: Draft
...
> 2.3. Extending by certified index
...
>Here's how it works: let's
On 2019-02-05 18:44, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Argh, I'm really sorry, I thought I'd reached the end of the proposal
> but my questions were addressed further down. Sorry for the noise.
Hang on. The issues you mentioned are indeed addressed in the proposal,
and there are also solutions given in the
Hi Nick,
Thanks for posting this initial draft. I enjoyed reading more of the details,
after hearing about it last week.
On February 5, 2019 5:02:50 PM UTC, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>Filename: 300-walking-onions.txt
>Title: Walking Onions: Scaling and Saving Bandwidth
>Author: Nick Mathewson
Argh, I'm really sorry, I thought I'd reached the end of the proposal
but my questions were addressed further down. Sorry for the noise.
Cheers,
Michael
On 05/02/2019 17:42, Michael Rogers wrote:
> I'm very happy to see this proposal! Two quick questions about relay
> selection:
>
> * Can a
I'm very happy to see this proposal! Two quick questions about relay
selection:
* Can a client specify that it wants an exit node whose policy allows
something unusual, e.g. exiting to a port that's not allowed by the
default policy? If not, does the client need to keep picking exit nodes
until
Filename: 300-walking-onions.txt
Title: Walking Onions: Scaling and Saving Bandwidth
Author: Nick Mathewson
Created: 5-Feb-2019
Status: Draft
0. Status
This proposal describes a mechanism called "Walking Onions" for
scaling the Tor network and reducing the amount of client bandwidth
10 matches
Mail list logo
