2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Filename: 325-packed-relay-cells.md
|
|
|
|
Title: Packed relay cells: saving space on small commands
|
|
|
|
Author: Nick Mathewson
|
|
|
|
Created: 10 July 2020
|
2020-07-27 15:29:59 +00:00
|
|
|
Status: Open
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In proposal 319 I suggested a way to fragment long commands across
|
|
|
|
multiple RELAY cells. In this proposal, I suggest a new format for
|
|
|
|
RELAY cells that can be used to pack multiple relay commands into a
|
|
|
|
single cell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would we want to do this? As we move towards improved
|
|
|
|
congestion-control and flow-control algorithms, we might not want to
|
|
|
|
use an entire 498-byte relay payload just to send a one-byte
|
|
|
|
flow-control message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We already have some cases where we'd benefit from this feature.
|
2020-07-10 19:18:15 +00:00
|
|
|
For example, when we send `SENDME` messages, `END` cells, or `BEGIN_DIR`
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
cells, most of the cell body is wasted with padding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a side benefit, packing cells in this way may make the job of the
|
|
|
|
traffic analyst a little more tricky, as cell contents become less
|
|
|
|
predictable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# The basic design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's use the term "Relay Message" to mean the kind of thing that a
|
|
|
|
relay cell used to hold. Thus, this proposal is about packing
|
|
|
|
multiple "Relay Messages" in to a cell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll use "Packed relay cell" to mean a relay cell in this new
|
|
|
|
format, that supports multiple messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll use "client" to mean the initiator of a circuit, and "relay" to
|
|
|
|
refer to the parties through who a circuit is created. Note that
|
|
|
|
each "relay" (as used here) may be the "client" on circuits of its own.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
When a relay supports relay message packing, it advertises the fact using a
|
|
|
|
new Relay protocol version. Clients must opt-in to using this protocol
|
|
|
|
version (see "Negotiation and Migration" section below ) before they can send
|
|
|
|
any packed relay cells, and before the relay will send them any packed relay
|
|
|
|
cells.
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When packed cells are in use, multiple cell messages can be
|
|
|
|
concatenated in a single relay cell.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
## Packed Cell Format
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to have multiple commands within one single relay cell, they are
|
|
|
|
concatenated one after another following this format of a relay cell. The
|
|
|
|
first command is the same header format as a normal relay cell detailed in
|
|
|
|
section 6.1 of tor-spec.txt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relay Command [1 byte]
|
|
|
|
'Recognized' [2 bytes]
|
|
|
|
StreamID [2 bytes]
|
|
|
|
Digest [4 bytes]
|
|
|
|
Length [2 bytes]
|
|
|
|
Data [Length bytes]
|
|
|
|
RELAY\_MESSAGE
|
|
|
|
Padding [up to end of cell]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `RELAY_MESSAGE` can be empty as in no bytes indicating no other messages
|
|
|
|
or set to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relay Command [1 byte]
|
|
|
|
StreamID [2 bytes]
|
|
|
|
Length [2 bytes]
|
|
|
|
Data [Length bytes]
|
|
|
|
RELAY\_MESSAGE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that the Recognized and Digest field are not added to a second relay
|
|
|
|
message, they are solely used for the whole relay cell thus how we
|
|
|
|
encrypt/decrypt and recognize a cell is not changed, only the payload changes
|
|
|
|
to contain multiple messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Relay Command" byte "0" is now used to explicitly indicate "end of
|
2021-04-14 14:43:20 +00:00
|
|
|
commands". If the byte "0" appears after a `RELAY_MESSAGE`, the rest of the
|
|
|
|
cell MUST be ignored. (Note that this "end of commands" indicator may be
|
|
|
|
absent if there are no bytes remaining after the last message in the cell.)
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only some "Relay Command" are supported for relay cell packing:
|
2020-07-10 19:18:15 +00:00
|
|
|
- `BEGIN_DIR`
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
- `BEGIN`
|
2020-07-10 19:18:15 +00:00
|
|
|
- `CONNECTED`
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
- `DATA`
|
|
|
|
- `DROP`
|
|
|
|
- `END`
|
2020-07-10 19:18:15 +00:00
|
|
|
- `PADDING_NEGOTIATED`
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
- `PADDING_NEGOTIATE`
|
|
|
|
- `SENDME`
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any relay message with a relay command _not_ listed above appears
|
|
|
|
in a packed relay cell with another relay message, then the
|
|
|
|
receiving party MUST tear down the circuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Note that relay cell fragments (proposal 319) are not supported for
|
|
|
|
packing.)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-02-22 17:48:40 +00:00
|
|
|
When generating RELAY cells, implementations SHOULD (as they do today) fill in
|
|
|
|
the Padding field with four 0-valued bytes, followed by a sequence of random
|
|
|
|
bytes up to the end of the cell. If there are fewer than 4 unused bytes at the
|
|
|
|
end of the cell, those unused bytes should all be filled with 0-valued bytes.
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Negotiation and migration
|
|
|
|
|
2020-07-10 19:16:55 +00:00
|
|
|
After receiving a packed relay cell, the relay knows that the client
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
supports this proposal: Relays SHOULD send packed relay
|
|
|
|
cells on any circuit on which they have received a packed relay
|
|
|
|
cell. Relays MUST NOT send packed relay cells otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clients, in turn, MAY send packed relay cells to any relay whose
|
|
|
|
"Relay" subprotocol version indicates that it supports this
|
|
|
|
protocol. To avoid fingerprinting, this client behavior should
|
|
|
|
controlled with a tristate (1/0/auto) torrc configuration value,
|
|
|
|
with the default set to use a consensus parameter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The parameter is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"relay-cell-packing"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boolean: if 1, clients should send packed relay cells.
|
|
|
|
(Min: 0, Max 1, Default: 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To handle migration, first the parameter should be set to 0 and the
|
|
|
|
configuration setting should be "auto". To test the feature, individual
|
|
|
|
clients can set the tristate to "1".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once enough clients have support for the parameter, the parameter
|
|
|
|
can be set to 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# A new relay message format
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(This section is optional and should be considered separately; we
|
|
|
|
may decide it is too complex.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, every relay message uses 5 bytes of header to hold a
|
|
|
|
relay command, a length field, and a stream ID. This is wasteful:
|
|
|
|
the stream ID is often redundant, and the top 7 bits of the length
|
|
|
|
field are always zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose a new relay message format, described here (with `ux`
|
|
|
|
denoting an x-bit bitfield). This format is 2 bytes or 4 bytes,
|
|
|
|
depending on its first bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct relay_header {
|
|
|
|
u1 stream_id_included; // Is the stream_id included?
|
|
|
|
u6 relay_command; // as before
|
|
|
|
u9 relay_data_len; // as before
|
|
|
|
u8 optional_stream_id[]; // 0 bytes or two bytes.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, you can view the first three fields as a 16-bit
|
|
|
|
value, computed as:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(stream_id_included<<15) | (relay_command << 9) | (relay_data_len).
|
|
|
|
|
2020-07-10 19:18:15 +00:00
|
|
|
If the `optional_stream_id` field is not present, then the default
|
|
|
|
value for the `stream_id` is computed as follows. We use stream_id 0
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
for any command that doesn't take a stream ID. For commands that
|
2020-07-10 19:18:15 +00:00
|
|
|
_do_ take a `steam_id`, we use whichever nonzero `stream_id` appeared
|
2020-07-10 19:16:55 +00:00
|
|
|
most recently in the same cell.
|
2020-07-10 17:51:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This format limits the space of possible relay commands. That's
|
|
|
|
probably okay: after 20 years of Tor development, we have defined 25
|
|
|
|
relay command values. But in case 2^6==64 commands will not be
|
|
|
|
enough, we reserve command values 48 through 63 for future formats
|
|
|
|
that need more command bits.
|
|
|
|
|