On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:55 PM Toralf Förster
wrote:
> On 12/14/21 17:06, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> >
> > A relay operator has asked me, offline, if it is possible under this
> > proposal for a relay to belong to more than one family. (For example,
> > if there were two relay operators who each
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:07 PM nusenu wrote:
> Nick Mathewson:
> > 1) The proposal currently limits each relay to no more than 3 families.
> > Is that a reasonable upper bound?
>
> Yes, 3 is a reasonable limit.
>
> > 2) We hadn't been planning to implement multi-family support right
> away,
Nick Mathewson:
1) The proposal currently limits each relay to no more than 3 families.
Is that a reasonable upper bound?
Yes, 3 is a reasonable limit.
2) We hadn't been planning to implement multi-family support right away,
though I could if needed. Is that something that many operators
On 12/14/21 17:06, Nick Mathewson wrote:
A relay operator has asked me, offline, if it is possible under this
proposal for a relay to belong to more than one family. (For example,
if there were two relay operators who each operated some relays on their
own, but also operated some relays join
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Nick Mathewson wrote:
> Hello, relay operators!
>
> I'm hoping to get some feedback from relay operators, particularly
> those who use the MyFamily option, about the best way to deploy
> proposal 321. You can read the proposal at:
>
>
> https://gitlab.torproject.o
Hi Nick,
On 06.11.2021 15:36, Nick Mathewson wrote:
an
attacker could guess it and become a family member.
Why would that be a problem?
All the best
Leibi
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-b
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 1:36 AM Scott Bennett wrote:
>
>
> Because the obvious incentive for cheaters is in the direction of
> trying
> to get clients' route selectors to choose routes through more than a single
> relay operated by a given cheater, rather than the other way around, this
> loo
Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
> > Hello, relay operators!
> >
> > I'm hoping to get some feedback from relay operators, particularly
> > those who use the MyFamily option, about the best way to deploy
> > proposal 321. You can read the proposal
On 11/6/21 3:36 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
Option 3 requires regular updates to all the relays in the family,
which makes it cumbersome.
Except for people who already have offline relay keys.
For those it is just 1 additonal file to copy ;)
--
Toralf
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP
It is a nice surprise to see activity in this area of
tor, thank you for working on this.
Option 3 requires regular updates to all the relays in the family,
which makes it cumbersome. Its advantage is that if a relay is
compromised, you don't need to re-key the family.
Options 1 and 2 are le
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Nick Mathewson wrote:
> Hello, relay operators!
>
> I'm hoping to get some feedback from relay operators, particularly
> those who use the MyFamily option, about the best way to deploy
> proposal 321. You can read the proposal at:
>
>
> https://gitlab.torproject.o
Hello, relay operators!
I'm hoping to get some feedback from relay operators, particularly
those who use the MyFamily option, about the best way to deploy
proposal 321. You can read the proposal at:
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/blob/master/proposals/321-happy-families.md
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
