Opened 6 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

#10957 new task

Be more aggressive about enabling Extended ORPort

Reported by: asn Owned by:
Priority: Low Milestone: Tor: unspecified
Component: Core Tor/Tor Version: Tor: 0.2.7
Severity: Normal Keywords: tor-pt, tor-bridge, needs-design, SponsorS-deferred extorport
Cc: lunar, isis Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points: small
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

Bridges without Extended ORPort do not publish statistics about usage. Some people really care about statistics.

In #9651 (merged in 0.2.5.1) we decided to add a warning if the user has PTs but no Extended ORPort.

Maybe we should be a bit more aggressive about enabling Extended ORPort, since many operators might simply ignore that warning.

Some solutions:

a) (Most aggressive) Just enable Extended ORPort by default if ORPort and PTs are in effect. Of course, make it listen only on localhost.

b) Turn the warning into an error, so that people can't start their bridge without it. The problem here is that it's not really an error, since the bridge will work fine without ExtORPort, but there will be no stats.

c) Use Unix sockets in platforms that support it; similar to how we do it for ControlPort.

Child Tickets

Change History (26)

comment:1 in reply to:  description ; Changed 6 years ago by nickm

Replying to asn:

Bridges without Extended ORPort do not publish statistics about usage. Some people really care about statistics.

In #9651 (merged in 0.2.5.1) we decided to add a warning if the user has PTs but no Extended ORPort.

Maybe we should be a bit more aggressive about enabling Extended ORPort, since many operators might simply ignore that warning.

Some solutions:

a) (Most aggressive) Just enable Extended ORPort by default if ORPort and PTs are in effect. Of course, make it listen only on localhost.

Could this actually work? IIRC, no single port can be both an ExtORPort and an ORPort. So what would actually happen?

b) Turn the warning into an error, so that people can't start their bridge without it. The problem here is that it's not really an error, since the bridge will work fine without ExtORPort, but there will be no stats.

c) Use Unix sockets in platforms that support it; similar to how we do it for ControlPort.

d) Outreach on the blog, on tor-talk, and in other venues.

comment:2 in reply to:  1 Changed 6 years ago by asn

Replying to nickm:

Replying to asn:

Bridges without Extended ORPort do not publish statistics about usage. Some people really care about statistics.

In #9651 (merged in 0.2.5.1) we decided to add a warning if the user has PTs but no Extended ORPort.

Maybe we should be a bit more aggressive about enabling Extended ORPort, since many operators might simply ignore that warning.

Some solutions:

a) (Most aggressive) Just enable Extended ORPort by default if ORPort and PTs are in effect. Of course, make it listen only on localhost.

Could this actually work? IIRC, no single port can be both an ExtORPort and an ORPort. So what would actually happen?

I meant "Enable Extended ORPort as a separate port, if ORPort and PTs are in effect". Basically also start up an Extended ORPort listener.

b) Turn the warning into an error, so that people can't start their bridge without it. The problem here is that it's not really an error, since the bridge will work fine without ExtORPort, but there will be no stats.

c) Use Unix sockets in platforms that support it; similar to how we do it for ControlPort.

d) Outreach on the blog, on tor-talk, and in other venues.

Yes, I've already sent 2 emails to tor-relays about this (one when ExtORPort got merged, and another one some days ago). Some people have enabled it already, but far from everyone. I guess this will change as time goes by.

As time passes (and 0.2.5.1 becomes stable) we should also add the ExtORPort option in:
https://www.torproject.org/projects/obfsproxy-instructions.html.en#instructions

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by nickm

Milestone: Tor: 0.2.5.x-finalTor: 0.2.6.x-final

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by nickm

Keywords: needs-design 026-triaged-1 026-deferrable added

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by isis

Cc: isis added

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by nickm

Milestone: Tor: 0.2.6.x-finalTor: 0.2.7.x-final
Status: newneeds_review

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by nickm

Status: needs_reviewnew

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by nickm

Status: newassigned

comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by nickm

Keywords: 027-triaged-1-in added

Marking some tickets as triaged-in for 0.2.7 based on early triage

comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by isabela

Keywords: SponsorS added
Points: small
Version: Tor: 0.2.7

comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by nickm

Milestone: Tor: 0.2.7.x-finalTor: 0.2.8.x-final

comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by nickm

Keywords: SponsorS removed
Sponsor: SponsorS

Bulk-replace SponsorS keyword with SponsorS sponsor field in Tor component.

comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by nickm

Priority: MediumLow

comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by nickm

Milestone: Tor: 0.2.8.x-finalTor: 0.2.9.x-final
Status: assignednew

Turn most 0.2.8 "assigned" tickets with no owner into "new" tickets for 0.2.9. Disagree? Find somebody who can do it (maybe you?) and get them to take it on for 0.2.8. :)

comment:15 Changed 4 years ago by nickm

Sponsor: SponsorSSponsorS-can

comment:16 Changed 4 years ago by isabela

Milestone: Tor: 0.2.9.x-finalTor: 0.2.???

tickets market to be removed from milestone 029

comment:17 Changed 3 years ago by nickm

Keywords: SponsorS-deferred added
Sponsor: SponsorS-can

Remove the SponsorS status from these items, which we already decided to defer from 0.2.9. add the SponsorS-deferred tag instead in case we ever want to remember which ones these were.

comment:18 Changed 3 years ago by teor

Milestone: Tor: 0.2.???Tor: 0.3.???

Milestone renamed

comment:19 Changed 3 years ago by nickm

Keywords: tor-03-unspecified-201612 added
Milestone: Tor: 0.3.???Tor: unspecified

Finally admitting that 0.3.??? was a euphemism for Tor: unspecified all along.

comment:20 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: tor-03-unspecified-201612 removed

Remove an old triaging keyword.

comment:21 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: 027-triaged-in added

comment:22 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: 027-triaged-in removed

comment:23 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: 027-triaged-1-in removed

comment:24 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: 026-triaged-1 removed

comment:25 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: 026-deferrable removed

comment:26 Changed 2 years ago by nickm

Keywords: extorport added
Severity: Normal
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.