WARNING: The consensuses published by the following directory authorities are more than one hour old and therefore not fresh anymore: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from tor26 was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from urras was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from longclaw was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from dizum was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from gabelmoo was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from moria1 was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Consensus fetched from dannenberg was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar NOTICE: Authorities disagree about the BadExit flag for C31DB3BF1BE063CAEE923655A0A15BB6B8E71D98 (with flag: gabelmoo, tor26, moria1, longclaw, without flag: maatuska) NOTICE: Authorities disagree about the BadExit flag for BD450A72E7DA214965128C8104EE6453AB8EF0AA (with flag: gabelmoo, tor26, moria1, longclaw, without flag: maatuska)
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:08:06AM +0000, atagar@torproject.org wrote:
NOTICE: Consensus fetched from maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar
This one is expected -- we have begun the shift to migrate away from urras.
WARNING: The consensuses published by the following directory authorities are more than one hour old and therefore not fresh anymore: Faravahar
This one is exciting. Does this mean that Faravahar is stubbornly clinging to the last consensus that it agreed with, rather than trying to fetch (and then serve) a newer consensus that has enough sigs?
Fun times, --Roger
This might help explain the situation:
Jul 02 02:00:01.000 [notice] Time to publish the consensus and discard old votes Jul 02 02:00:01.000 [warn] A consensus needs 5 good signatures from recognized authorities for us to accept it. This one has 1 (Faravahar). 7 (dannenberg tor26 longclaw maatuska moria1 dizum gabelmoo) of the authorities we know didn't sign it. Jul 02 02:00:01.000 [warn] Not enough info to publish pending ns consensus Jul 02 02:00:01.000 [warn] A consensus needs 5 good signatures from recognized authorities for us to accept it. This one has 1 (Faravahar). 7 (dannenberg tor26 longclaw maatuska moria1 dizum gabelmoo) of the authorities we know didn't sign it. Jul 02 02:00:01.000 [warn] Not enough info to publish pending microdesc consensus Jul 02 02:00:01.000 [notice] Choosing expected valid-after time as 2016-07-02 03:00:00: consensus_set=1, interval=3600
Looks like a new vote was actually published: http://154.35.175.225/tor/status-vote/current/authority
Yet, the consensus is still old: http://154.35.175.225/tor/status-vote/current/consensus
All the best, Sina
On 7/1/16 21:37, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:08:06AM +0000, atagar@torproject.org wrote:
NOTICE: Consensus fetched from maatuska was missing the following authority signatures: Faravahar
This one is expected -- we have begun the shift to migrate away from urras.
WARNING: The consensuses published by the following directory authorities are more than one hour old and therefore not fresh anymore: Faravahar
This one is exciting. Does this mean that Faravahar is stubbornly clinging to the last consensus that it agreed with, rather than trying to fetch (and then serve) a newer consensus that has enough sigs?
Fun times, --Roger
tor-consensus-health mailing list tor-consensus-health@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health
tor-consensus-health@lists.torproject.org
-
atagar＠torproject.org -
Roger Dingledine -
Sina Rabbani