Opened 4 years ago

Closed 3 hours ago

#10401 closed task (fixed)

Add IPv6 icon to Atlas

Reported by: hsn Owned by: irl
Priority: Medium Milestone:
Component: Metrics/Atlas Version:
Severity: Normal Keywords: metrics-2018
Cc: nusenu@… Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

If relay has IPv6 ORPOrt add IPv6 icon - there are already icons for guards, exit etc.

Ipv6 needs some promotion to get wider deployment. Its very handy for tor because its often left unfiltered. Currently only about 10% of relays runs IPv6. Anybody with public IPv4 - like all relays can get IPv6 6to4 address without any registration just by enabling 6to4 translation in kernel.

b/
add some information to list of allowed exiting ports that relay has Ipv6 exit enabled.

Child Tickets

Attachments (1)

ipv6_properties.png (4.3 KB) - added by irl 6 hours ago.
Proposed IPv6 additional flags icons

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (17)

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by tyseom

Cc: nusenu@… added

comment:2 Changed 9 months ago by cypherpunks

Severity: Normal

Previous discussions in #6355 and #21367 about adding flags that aren't assigned by the directories authorities ended with not adding them because they would create confusion. The same argument can be used for this ticket.

Additionally, IPv6 addresses are already shown under the OR Addresses field. Adding an icon would duplicate this information.

Suggesting closing this ticket as wontfix.

comment:3 Changed 9 months ago by cypherpunks

I hope you do not close this as wontfix. Displaying IPv6 info more prominent is useful.

For icons that do not represent tor relay flags (as per dir-spec), we could simply add a new column to make you happy as well (new ticket for that: #21635)

comment:4 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 9 months ago by cypherpunks

Replying to cypherpunks:

Previous discussions in #6355 and #21367 about adding flags that aren't assigned by the directories authorities ended with not adding them because they would create confusion. T

That is not true - at least for #21367. Atlas currently displays a red icon for not recommended relays.

comment:5 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 9 months ago by teor

In general, I think this is a good idea: this would encourage the adoption of IPv6, and make it easier to monitor for relay operators.

Replying to cypherpunks:

Previous discussions in #6355 and #21367 about adding flags that aren't assigned by the directories authorities ended with not adding them because they would create confusion. The same argument can be used for this ticket.

There is no IPv6 flag, but the authorities do vote on IPv6 ORPort addresses in the full consensus based on their reachability. We should create a flag representing the presence of an IPv6 addresses in the full consensus. (The microdesc consensus doesn't have IPv6 addresses, so it is no good here, see #20916).

Additionally, IPv6 addresses are already shown under the OR Addresses field. Adding an icon would duplicate this information.

The presence of the address in the full consensus is a distinct piece of information.

Also, it would be useful to have an IPv6 Exit flag. This flag would duplicate the IPv6 exit policy summary, but in a much more understandable form.

comment:6 in reply to:  4 Changed 9 months ago by cypherpunks

Replying to cypherpunks:

Replying to cypherpunks:

Previous discussions in #6355 and #21367 about adding flags that aren't assigned by the directories authorities ended with not adding them because they would create confusion. T

That is not true - at least for #21367. Atlas currently displays a red icon for not recommended relays.

You are right. Currently the not recommended icon is still shown but the discussion is moving towards moving this flag elsewhere.

comment:7 in reply to:  5 ; Changed 9 months ago by cypherpunks

Replying to teor:

In general, I think this is a good idea: this would encourage the adoption of IPv6, and make it easier to monitor for relay operators.

I agree but solution isn't forcing Atlas to introduce arbitrary icons with no data from Onionoo to back it up.

Replying to cypherpunks:

Previous discussions in #6355 and #21367 about adding flags that aren't assigned by the directories authorities ended with not adding them because they would create confusion. The same argument can be used for this ticket.

There is no IPv6 flag, but the authorities do vote on IPv6 ORPort addresses in the full consensus based on their reachability. We should create a flag representing the presence of an IPv6 addresses in the full consensus. (The microdesc consensus doesn't have IPv6 addresses, so it is no good here, see #20916).

A flag from the directory authorities would solve this issue (assuming Onionoo would then pass it through to Atlas).

Additionally, IPv6 addresses are already shown under the OR Addresses field. Adding an icon would duplicate this information.

The presence of the address in the full consensus is a distinct piece of information.

True, unfortunately all OR addresses are grouped into one array by Onionoo so Atlas doesn't see this distinction.

comment:8 in reply to:  7 ; Changed 9 months ago by teor

Replying to cypherpunks:

Replying to teor:

In general, I think this is a good idea: this would encourage the adoption of IPv6, and make it easier to monitor for relay operators.

I agree but solution isn't forcing Atlas to introduce arbitrary icons with no data from Onionoo to back it up.

I opened a ticket to include this data in OnionOO, see #21637.

Replying to cypherpunks:

Previous discussions in #6355 and #21367 about adding flags that aren't assigned by the directories authorities ended with not adding them because they would create confusion. The same argument can be used for this ticket.

There is no IPv6 flag, but the authorities do vote on IPv6 ORPort addresses in the full consensus based on their reachability. We should create a flag representing the presence of an IPv6 addresses in the full consensus. (The microdesc consensus doesn't have IPv6 addresses, so it is no good here, see #20916).

A flag from the directory authorities would solve this issue (assuming Onionoo would then pass it through to Atlas).

One solution to #20916 does involve adding a (No)IPv6 address flag to the microdesc consensus. But we might end up adding IPv6 addresses instead, because that makes bootstrap easier. In the meantime, OnionOO can check for the presence of an IPv6 address in the full consensus.

Additionally, IPv6 addresses are already shown under the OR Addresses field. Adding an icon would duplicate this information.

The presence of the address in the full consensus is a distinct piece of information.

True, unfortunately all OR addresses are grouped into one array by Onionoo so Atlas doesn't see this distinction.

We can fix that.

comment:9 Changed 9 months ago by teor

I suggest we make the IPv6 icon "6" rather than "v6", because it's more readable.

comment:10 Changed 7 months ago by irl

For the original ticket description - I would strongly argue against the promotion of transitional mechanisms as the more these are used, the less incentive there is to deploy native IPv6 and the higher the latency for Tor circuits.

I'm not sure about teor's comment. A "6" would be more readable but perhaps less recognisable than a "v6"?

comment:11 Changed 8 weeks ago by karsten

Keywords: metrics-2018 added

comment:12 Changed 8 weeks ago by karsten

Owner: changed from hellais to metrics-team
Status: newassigned

comment:13 in reply to:  8 Changed 29 hours ago by teor

Additionally, IPv6 addresses are already shown under the OR Addresses field. Adding an icon would duplicate this information.

The presence of the address in the full consensus is a distinct piece of information.

True, unfortunately all OR addresses are grouped into one array by Onionoo so Atlas doesn't see this distinction.

We can fix that.

Onionoo implemented unreachable OR addresses in #21637.
Can we show a black flag for IPv6 ORPorts, and a red flag for unreachable IPv6 ORPorts?
Can we make the IPv6 address red if it's unreachable?
Can we show a separate flag for IPv6 Exits?

Edit: clarify, and ask for an exit flag as well

Last edited 29 hours ago by teor (previous) (diff)

comment:14 Changed 19 hours ago by irl

Owner: changed from metrics-team to irl
Status: assignedaccepted

I like the black red distinction for reachable/unreachable.

I think that a v6 exit flag is also a reasonable idea.

Note to me: I should refactor the way that additional flags are handled when implementing this as we now have enough that it's worth doing to reduce the code duplication.

Changed 6 hours ago by irl

Attachment: ipv6_properties.png added

Proposed IPv6 additional flags icons

comment:15 Changed 6 hours ago by irl

I've attached some design for IPv6 additional icons above. They're not amazing, but I'm not a designer. Lack of icons no longer blocks this ticket.

comment:16 Changed 3 hours ago by irl

Resolution: fixed
Status: acceptedclosed

As unreachable addresses can affect both IPv4 and IPv6 equally, I think a specific unreachable flag for IPv6 is not the best idea, a general Unreachable ORPort flag covering both cases will be addressed in #24388.

As for IPv6 ORPort and IPv6 Exit, this is fixed in 7c3b4ef.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.