[tor-bugs] #5935 [BridgeDB]: Determine how bridge-pool assignments should work with BridgeDB's IPv6 and pluggable-transport extensions

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#5935: Determine how bridge-pool assignments should work with BridgeDB's IPv6 and
pluggable-transport extensions
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  aagbsn    |          Owner:     
     Type:  defect    |         Status:  new
 Priority:  normal    |      Milestone:     
Component:  BridgeDB  |        Version:     
 Keywords:            |         Parent:     
   Points:            |   Actualpoints:     
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------

Comment(by karsten):

 Replying to [comment:4 aagbsn]:
 > This gets hairy; for example, consider the case where a bridge has an
 ipv4 address with port 443, and an ipv6 address without port 443.

 True.  This isn't only a problem of assignments.log, but of BridgeDB's
 operation in general.  Is BridgeDB supposed to return at least 1 IPv6
 bridge on port 443, or do we ignore ports until we have enough IPv6
 bridges to be picky about the port?  What if a bridge has port 8443 as
 primary OR port and uses a second IPv4 address (which isn't possible right
 now, but which is allowed by the spec) with port 443---would we put it in
 the "port 443" subring?

 For simplicity, I'd say we should only put a bridge in the "port 443"
 subring and add an `port=443` entry to assignments.log if the bridge's
 primary OR port is 443.  Let's ignore "or-address" and "a" lines with
 respect to port 443 until we run into problems not giving out at least one
 bridge on that port.  We can always make it more complex later.

 > The order of keys doesn't matter, right?

 Right.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5935#comment:5>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online