Improved Mixnet design: Random mixnet destination #307
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
youngjoon-lee
force-pushed
the
mixnet-design-change
branch
from
80e49f2
to
cfd87d9
Compare
* Refactor body type to encapsulate data * Use final payload as generic async read * fix sending SphinxPacket * use a common protocol for sending final payload to mixclient * add a missing TODO comment --------- Co-authored-by: Youngjoon Lee <taxihighway@gmail.com>
youngjoon-lee
commented
Aug 19, 2023
| #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Clone, Debug)] | ||
| pub enum MixnetClientMode { | ||
| Sender, | ||
| SenderReceiver(SocketAddr), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of making mixclient listen connections, I’ll make mixnode open another port only for the mixclient. I think that makes much sense. Then, the mixclient API could be much cleaner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’ll do this at the next PR to not make this PR bigger. Because this PR works now, I think we can go with this, as long as we agree on the MixnetClientMode design
danielSanchezQ
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the previous design #302, the problem was that message senders must specify the mixnet destination (== the IP of
MixnetClient). Please note that it's different from the message routing destination.But, in reality, senders doesn't have any information about the IP of
MixnetClients available.Instead, I improved the design like this:
nomos-nodealways embed aMixnetClientthat receives Sphinx packets, reconstructs messages, and sends them to the network backend in itsnomos-node.MixnetNode, you must know at least oneMixnetClientaddress.MixnetNodeoperators should run their ownnomos-nodeas well.MixnetNodefromMixnetTopology, they choose one moreMixnetNodeas a destination, randomly.MixnetNode. Then, the message is reconstructed and is broadcasted/routed to all othernomos-nodes.nomos-nodeoperator, it's not mandatory to runMixnetNode.With this design, the message sender doesn't need to know about the mixnet destination, as Alvaro suggested.
At the next PR, I'll show how to integrate these to the
nomos-node.