[tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor]

> On 27 Jan 2016, at 18:19, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith <i at virgil.gr> wrote:
>> No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this
>> issue.  I can go either way.
> 
> Same IP excepting NAT is same box, kind of pointless if
> they're not the same entity [1], err to caution and call it family,
> put them in touch or encourage one or both to move or shutdown.
> 
> [1] Same entity would make sense if it was that entities
> chosen / available way of binding multiple cpu cores to
> tor instances, at least as far as the daemons go without
> considering overall utility to tor.

Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family.
See nodelist_add_node_and_family() and addrs_in_same_network_family() in the tor source.

Whether OnionOO should reflect this is another matter.

Perhaps it could imitate Tor, and have a separate field called "network family"?

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160129/fe12bbe7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160129/fe12bbe7/attachment.sig>