<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA384<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Message: 5<br>
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:50:21 +0200<br>
> From: Anders Andersson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pipatron@gmail.com"><pipatron@gmail.com></a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org">tor-relays@lists.torproject.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same
/8?<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CAKkunMYKgXKT1OEbV5Lft9edqLhvAJsbxv7QkHQn6dCbpuj36Q@mail.gmail.com"><CAKkunMYKgXKT1OEbV5Lft9edqLhvAJsbxv7QkHQn6dCbpuj36Q@mail.gmail.com></a><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jesse Victors<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jvictors@jessevictors.com"><jvictors@jessevictors.com></a> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I run some relays and an exit in a university setting.
The nodes are in the same /8 block and are physically close to one
another as well. Is there any advantage in turning one of the
relays into another exit? This is something that my ISP would be
agreeable to, but I'm also pondering the effects on the Tor
network as a whole.<br>
> Just want to be clear here: Do you really mean /8 and not
/24? There's<br>
> only one university I can find with a /8 block.</span><br>
Anders, no I literally mean the same /8. The university has its own
/16 and recently required another /16, but since my nodes are
physically close to one another they are in the same /8. My concern
is that too many nodes in a small block can result in a large
concentration of Tor circuits in that block. No circuit should use
any two nodes from the same /16 unless forced to, so my question
really revolved around how many is too many Tor circuits and how
much is too much traffic through the same /8 or /16 in people's
opinion.<br>
<br>
- --<br>
Jesse V.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 08/27/2014 06:00 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org">tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org</a>
wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:24:42 +0200<br>
> From: Moritz Bartl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:moritz@torservers.net"><moritz@torservers.net></a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org">tor-relays@lists.torproject.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same
/8?<br>
> Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:53FC98AA.2000607@torservers.net"><53FC98AA.2000607@torservers.net></a><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
><br>
> Hi Jesse,<br>
><br>
> On 08/26/2014 03:47 PM, Jesse Victors wrote:<br>
>> > It seems to me that too many nodes under the same
ISP is <br>
>> > problematic because it concentrates too much traffic
in<br>
>> > the same AS, but on the other hand, Tor could use
more exits.<br>
>> > More importantly, how many is too many nodes in the
same /8,<br>
>> > or in the same /16? Where would you draw the line?<br>
> Very good question. Ideally, the Tor client would be
AS-aware, and you<br>
> would not have to worry about it. For the interested reader,
see for<br>
> example [1]. Until then, my thinking is that I compare to
other<br>
> locations. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://compass.torproject.org/">https://compass.torproject.org/</a> is very helpful
for that: For<br>
> example, if you group by AS, the largest AS right now (i3d,
NL) in<br>
> regards to exit capacity has 11%, and OVH tops the overall
network at<br>
> 10% consensus weight.<br>
><br>
> As a rough rule, I'd avoid to push more than 1-2Gbit/s of
traffic at one<br>
> ISP. On the plus side, as long as you don't top the list,
you're<br>
> weighing down other locations. And universities are a
preferred location.<br>
><br>
> Make sure to use the MyFamily statement correctly: Unless
relays are on<br>
> the same /16, Tor might pick multiple of them for a circuit.
Also, if<br>
> you want to push more than ~100 Mbit/s on a single machine,
you need<br>
> AES-NI or run multiple relays, for more than 400 Mbit/s you
need to run<br>
> multiple relays in any case. The multi-relay initscript can
be quite<br>
> helpful for that.<br>
><br>
> [1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#ccs2013-usersrouted">http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#ccs2013-usersrouted</a><br>
> [2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.torservers.net/wiki/setup/server#multiple_tor_processes">https://www.torservers.net/wiki/setup/server#multiple_tor_processes</a><br>
><br>
> -- Moritz Bartl <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.torservers.net/">https://www.torservers.net/</a> </span><br>
Thanks Moritz,<br>
<br>
Ok, so I think 1-2 Gbit/s is a good number, that just seems like an
awful lot of data to me and I'd rather see that spread out more
diversely of course. I'm aware that no circuit should contain two
nodes from the same /16 unless forced to, and the MyFamily value
further helps with that. My concern was not with a single circuit
using multiple nodes there, but rather many circuits preferring that
AS. Diversity helps security. That being said, by your advice I'm
nowhere near that threshold, so I could keep going.<br>
<br>
Thanks for the tips on the multiple Tor instances and the
optimization tips.<br>
<br>
- --<br>
Jesse V.<br>
/CS, Network Security<br>
<br>
/<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)<br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
<br>
iQF8BAEBCQBmBQJT/e7iXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w<br>
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB<br>
RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAu0wIAK3rn17vEWQZTZy5KVBgOnUI<br>
TstJAkqO9Wjkfxf++E/5h8OMRdU1f3rV2mArJgGbgc344ttueM8iPntneaK4jI9W<br>
4FrEqiMf7X6boYZXyeG81gYaGT6nf8ePSK5+1xY3pGR+2R3gXbDt/AU/LIZFsL2w<br>
r+9znukltzWBudfM76Fzd7jJcrwC+2giguHKU1/oxpKDh1xWuQC4maOYxZexGSLw<br>
JFz/O9Ca/CIDH/5Pbm6uJFe3Ec1zzm6z8cgsfBmGY8GHj3xBM8bNttP+a+fW7J5Z<br>
W01uoYss6tuw3jhVAp/+LKm4GcXsdtUjJIAX56yvEURCa6L9CbuTYha4cBI4zFw=<br>
=OHSc<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>