Opened 15 years ago

Last modified 8 years ago

#192 closed enhancement (Won't fix)

I should be able to schedule server use separately for different address ranges

Reported by: bmeike Owned by:
Priority: Low Milestone: post 0.2.0.x
Component: Core Tor/Tor Version: unspeficied
Severity: Keywords:
Cc: bmeike, mark, nickm Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:


Even after Tor has used all of the bandwidth allocated for it, for a given time period, it should
route my (the server owner's) traffic. It should be possible to route local proxy traffic
separately from external circuit traffic.

[Automatically added by flyspray2trac: Operating System: All]

Child Tickets

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by bmeike

This is a tor request. Sorry

comment:2 Changed 14 years ago by nickm

We'll have bandwidth classes in 0.1.2.x; if they can't handle this, they should.

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by mark

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by nickm

Actually, this is looking harder than we thought. The issue is what to do when addresses X and Y
get high priority, address Z gets low priority, and there are circuits X<-->Y and Z<-->Y. When
traffic comes in on Y, should we read it in case it's intended for X, or stall it in case it's
intended for Z? Either way, there are anonymity implications. There might be a good answer, but
it won't necessarily appear in time for 0.1.2.x.

comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by nickm

We seem to be on track for doing this in 0.2.0.x, with the RelayBandwidthRate logic that Roger's
working on.

comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by nickm

The part of this that everybody wanted ("Prioritize my traffic over relayed traffic") is implemeted as described in
Proposal 111. Marking "implemented".

comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by nickm

Re-opened by request.

comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by nickm

The remaining parts of this are post-0.2.0.x

comment:9 Changed 11 years ago by nickm

Why is this still open again? I reopened it by request last September, but nobody ever said what behaviour it
was that they wanted that current Tors do not do.

The easiest version of this would be to specify some address ranges that don't count towards accounting and bandwidth
limits. Having independent arbitrary limits for arbitrary address ranges is probably out; it would be way too easy
to get into cases where a connection from A had circuits that you needed to relay to B and C, and B's bandwidth was
very low, but A and C's bandwidths were very high. (This already happens a little, but the most general version of
this feature would make it worse.)

The even more easiest version would be to close this bug as "wontfix."

comment:10 Changed 11 years ago by nickm

No response from any user. Closing again.

comment:11 Changed 11 years ago by nickm

flyspray2trac: bug closed.

comment:12 Changed 8 years ago by nickm

Component: Tor ClientTor
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.