mirror of
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor.git
synced 2024-11-28 06:13:31 +01:00
87 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
87 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
Filename: 146-long-term-stability.txt
|
|
Title: Add new flag to reflect long-term stability
|
|
Version: $Revision$
|
|
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
|
Author: Nick Mathewson
|
|
Created: 19-Jun-2008
|
|
Status: Open
|
|
Target: 0.2.1.x
|
|
|
|
Overview
|
|
|
|
This document proposes a new flag to indicate that a router has
|
|
existed at the same address for a long time, describes how to
|
|
implement it, and explains what it's good for.
|
|
|
|
Motivation
|
|
|
|
Tor has had three notions of "stability" for servers. Older
|
|
directory protocols based a server's stability on its
|
|
(self-reported) uptime: a server that had been running for a day was
|
|
more stable than a server that had been running for five minutes,
|
|
regardless of their past history. Current directory protocols track
|
|
weighted mean time between failure (WMTBF) and weighted fractional
|
|
uptime (WFU). WFU is computed as the fraction of time for which the
|
|
server is running, with measurements weighted to exponentially
|
|
decay such that old days count less. WMTBF is computed as the
|
|
average length of intervals for which the server runs between
|
|
downtime, with old intervals weighted to count less.
|
|
|
|
WMTBF is useful in answering the question: "If a server is running
|
|
now, how long is it likely to stay running?" This makes it a good
|
|
choice for picking servers for streams that need to be long-lived.
|
|
WFU is useful in answering the question: "If I try connecting to
|
|
this server at an arbitrary time, is it likely to be running?" This
|
|
makes it an important factor for picking guard nodes, since we want
|
|
guard nodes to be usually-up.
|
|
|
|
There are other questions that clients want to answer, however, for
|
|
which the current flags aren't very useful. The one that this
|
|
proposal addresses is,
|
|
|
|
"If I found this server in an old consensus, is it likely to
|
|
still be running at the same address?"
|
|
|
|
This one is useful when we're trying to find directory mirrors in a
|
|
fallback-consensus file. This property is equivalent to,
|
|
|
|
"If I find this server in a current consensus, how long is it
|
|
likely to exist on the network?"
|
|
|
|
This one is useful if we're trying to pick introduction points or
|
|
something and care more about churn rate than about whether every IP
|
|
will be up all the time.
|
|
|
|
Implementation:
|
|
|
|
I propose we add a new flag, called "Longterm." Authorities should
|
|
set this flag for routers if their Longevity is in the upper
|
|
quartile of all routers. A router's Longevity is computed as the
|
|
total amount of days in the last year or so[*] for which the router has
|
|
been Running at least once at its current IP:orport pair.
|
|
|
|
Clients should use directory servers from a fallback-consensus only
|
|
if they have the Longterm flag set.
|
|
|
|
Authority ops should be able to mark particular routers as not
|
|
Longterm, regardless of history. (For instance, it makes sense to
|
|
remove the Longterm flag from a router whose op says that it will
|
|
need to shutdown in a month.)
|
|
|
|
[*] This is deliberately vague, to permit efficient implementations.
|
|
|
|
Compatibility and migration issues:
|
|
|
|
The voting protocol already acts gracefully when new flags are
|
|
added, so no change to the voting protocol is needed.
|
|
|
|
Tor won't have collected this data, however. It might be desirable
|
|
to bootstrap it from historical consensuses. Alternatively, we can
|
|
just let the algorithm run for a month or two.
|
|
|
|
Issues and future possibilities:
|
|
|
|
Longterm is a really awkward name.
|
|
|
|
|