> On 27 Jan 2016, at 18:19, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith <i...@virgil.gr> wrote: >> No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this >> issue. I can go either way. > > Same IP excepting NAT is same box, kind of pointless if > they're not the same entity [1], err to caution and call it family, > put them in touch or encourage one or both to move or shutdown. > > [1] Same entity would make sense if it was that entities > chosen / available way of binding multiple cpu cores to > tor instances, at least as far as the daemons go without > considering overall utility to tor.
Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family. See nodelist_add_node_and_family() and addrs_in_same_network_family() in the tor source. Whether OnionOO should reflect this is another matter. Perhaps it could imitate Tor, and have a separate field called "network family"? Tim Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B teor at blah dot im OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
