- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

request at Hetzner
by Toralf Förster 13 Sep '14

13 Sep '14

3 things: 1. ========= This is what I get few days ago from Hetzer Support: >Guten Tag Herr Förster, > >laut Deutschem Recht sind Tor Server im Moment nicht verboten. >Aus diesem Grund sind Tor Server bei uns auch nicht verboten. >Aus Erfahrung raten wir jedoch vom Betrieb eines Tor Exit Node ab. >Leider wird oft ueber Tor Server Content verbreitet welcher laut >Deutschem Recht >nicht erlaubt ist. Dies kann Ermittlungen von Behoerden nach sich >ziehen. Maybe worth to update https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISPs ? 2. ========= I'm planning to setup there a dedicated server now soon (with Gentoo Linux if possible) within next days - or are there too much servers already at the ISP Hetzner ? 3. ========= And for the following days I do want put the line "ExitPolicy reject *:*" before all subsequent liens like "ExitPolicy accept *:20-23 # FTP, SSH, telnet" of the reduced exit policy to just look how the system behaves as a simply relay. Worth or superflous ? Am I right, that later just commenting out that reject line enhance the Tor server from relay to "relay + exit node" ? Or does this mean that -- Toralf pgp key: 0076 E94E

6 9

What to change for v0.2.5.x?
by Steve Snyder 13 Sep '14

13 Sep '14

So now Tor v0.2.5.x Release Candidates are available. Can someone give an overview of what's new for those who don't follow the development process? What can/or should be changed in a working v0.2.4.x relay config to accommodate the changes made in the new code? Are there particular areas (IPv6, multi-threading, etc.) that one should be aware of when moving from v0.2.4 to v0.2.5? The changelogs do a great job of describing the changes between point releases but are somewhat overwhelming when attempting to determine the differences between major releases. If would be great if someone could give a brief(-ish) description of those changes. Thanks.

3 3

IPv6 - status
by Marcin Gondek 12 Sep '14

12 Sep '14

Hi, What is the current state of IPv6? ==cut== Relays to relays Relays talk to other relays. The work with relays talking to other relays over IPv6 has not been started. ==cut== Is there any plans to start? How I can help? ==cut== Directory authorities on IPv6 Clients and relays talk to directory authorities. The work with making directory authorities reachable over IPv6 has not been started. This work will be tracked in #6027. ==cut== Same as above? Clue is when it will be possible to run pure IPv6 relay/guard. Regards, -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter http://fido.e-utp.net/ AS56662

3 4

Re: [tor-relays] boost CPU on a Tor relay
by Harold Naparst 09 Sep '14

09 Sep '14

I'll just throw in my datapoint on this subject because it might be of interest. My relay (torpoint) is currently advertising a bandwidth of 58 MB/s according to Globe. Arm reports that it is pushing 50 MB/s and has 12,500 open clients. It has a Xeon E3/1220 with 8 GB ram. The load average is 0.75, and the four cores are at about 20-25% each. About 2GB of ram is being used. On the whole, this relay is probably bandwidth constrained. The ISP guarantees 150 Mbps, but I sometimes get more, like now.

1 0

Gentoo overlay
by Harold Naparst 09 Sep '14

09 Sep '14

Sorry Jeremy, I didn't realize you were a Gentoo dev. I have added the comment to the Gentoo bug discussion per your wishes.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128
by Harold Naparst 09 Sep '14

09 Sep '14

I thought about this also, but I decided not to do it. Gentoo has clearly decided not to include the Elliptic Curve algorithms until they can get confirmation that it works on all archs. Funtoo has taken the opposite position. >From the looks of the Gentoo thread, they should add the flag in the near future, and I think it would be more diplomatic to just let the process play out. My hope is that a Google search would lead most people to this post. I just created the ebuild in my overlay because I wanted it now and I thought some other enthusiasts would also want it now. I hope it works for you, and would be interested if it makes a difference. > Thanks for your contribution, can you also add some note to the > underlying bug report https://bugs.gentoo.org/469976 so others may see > it easier? > -Jeremy > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Harold Naparst <harold(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> If you want a version of openssl compiled with the >> enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 option and you are using Gentoo Linux, >> you can grab it from my overlay:

1 0

enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128
by Harold Naparst 09 Sep '14

09 Sep '14

If you want a version of openssl compiled with the enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 option and you are using Gentoo Linux, you can grab it from my overlay: layman -f layman -a hnaparst emerge openssl The new flag "nist" is turned on by default. I have 1.0.1i and 1.0.2_beta2 in the overlay. Hope it helps.

2 1

TTTT
by Sebastian Urbach 08 Sep '14

08 Sep '14

Dear list members, Just a quick update regarding TTTT: Currently we are working on a technical paper based on the so far collected data. ETA is roughly 4 weeks from now on. The paper is going to hit this list asap. -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat and statesman

1 0

Handshake flood now on NTor
by Jobiwan Kenobi 08 Sep '14

08 Sep '14

Hi, For about 15 hours straight, my relay was being hammered by connections/handshakes. I see lots of these: Sep 02 01:03:02.000 [warn] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more restricted exit policy. [70638 similar message(s) suppressed in last 60 seconds] Numbers vary between 30000 and 80000 per 60 seconds. Also the occasional clock jump message and other performance related messages, and of course, _lots_ of unsuccessful handshakes: Sep 01 22:31:26.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 5038/5038 TAP, 17771/17773 NTor. Sep 02 04:31:26.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 3100/3484 TAP, 465565/5417818 NTor. Sep 02 10:31:26.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 3139/4249 TAP, 679872/8244698 NTor. Sep 02 16:31:26.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 3884/5294 TAP, 502835/10443735 NTor. It is a low spec machine. I've been through episodes like this before, but this time it's different: - They are NTor handshakes, where before they would be TAP handshakes. - The amount of up and down traffic is pretty balanced, where before I would get much more down than up during these floods. - In case it matters: I am now running 0.2.4.23, before I was on 0.2.4.18-RC It stopped about 4 hours ago. Running normal now. -Job

3 3

fingerprint info propogation
by jason＠icetor.is 07 Sep '14

07 Sep '14

Sorry if asked before, made a stupid oversight restarting one of my exits yesterday, had duplicated the fingerprint file from another node. Changed the file to the correct nickname today (I know nicknames are depreciated now) and reset tor, how long will it take this change to propogate to the network? -Jason

4 4

TOR exit notice (not USA)
by Christian Gagneraud 06 Sep '14

06 Sep '14

Hi there, I've just installed the tor-exit-notice.html (from contrib/) on my exit node, and read it carefully. I think this is great to have such a text, but 2 paragraphs are USA specific, the one about ECPA and the following one about DMCA. I would like to know if anyone knows about equivalent text for the European Union, Germany, France and New Zealand (I'm French, I'm a New Zealand resident and I run a TOR exit node on a server located in Germany) Thanks, Chris

4 4

Time information
by Marcin Gondek 05 Sep '14

05 Sep '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I just looking on the logs and see: ==cut== Sep 02 21:03:54.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:443. It seems that our clock is behind by 1 hours, 24 minutes, or that theirs is ahead. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:06:04.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:9001. It seems that our clock is ahead by 1 hours, 4 minutes, or that theirs is behind. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:06:08.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:9001. It seems that our clock is ahead by 3 hours, 35 minutes, or that theirs is behind. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:06:58.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:9001. It seems that our clock is behind by 5 hours, 58 minutes, or that theirs is ahead. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:08:53.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:9001. It seems that our clock is behind by 1 hours, 54 minutes, or that theirs is ahead. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:10:49.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:9001. It seems that our clock is behind by 5 hours, 55 minutes, or that theirs is ahead. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:11:51.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:8443. It seems that our clock is ahead by 1 hours, 26 minutes, or that theirs is behind. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Sep 02 21:11:52.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:449. It seems that our clock is ahead by 1 hours, 19 minutes, or that theirs is behind. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. ==cut== Should I worry about it? Logs seems to little strange and looks that other servers provide it's local time without any timezone. [root@fido tor]# ntpq -p remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter ============================================================================== +x.x.x.x .PPS. 1 u 11 64 377 15.026 2.142 3.279 +x.x.x.x .PPS. 1 u 26 64 377 8.315 2.734 4.281 +x.x.x.x .PPS. 1 u 2 64 377 6.511 0.973 3.214 *x.x.x.x .PPS. 1 u 60 64 377 6.395 2.162 1.869 oGPS_NMEA(0) .GPS. 0 l 15 16 377 0.000 0.014 0.009 And server is a part of ntppool - valid. Regards, - -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter http://fido.e-utp.net/ AS56662 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Outlook Privacy Plugin iGkEARECACkFAlQGGCoiHE1hcmNpbiBHb25kZWsgPGRyaXh0ZXJAZS11dHAubmV0 PgAKCRCBZoxYcbpnGhhSAJ0RENGRgehGCb/9m/P2lTHR/2k+kACgwOIXsUNHS6FW 1AOwVQoeTwSPCO0= =OYl2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 8

ORCONN
by Yannick Krueck 04 Sep '14

04 Sep '14

Hello, I provide a Tor-Relay Server. I have a questions regarding the Tor control protocol. If i use "setevents orconn", i get a lot of Connections. Mostly i get first a "New/Launched" message, then a "Connected" message and then a "Failed/Closed" message. But sometimes i get only a "New"-message, and a "Connected" message, but I never receive a "Failed" or "Closed" message. In this case, i only get the IP Adress, but no LongName. For example: 650 ORCONN 81.219.94.108:1976 NEW 650 ORCONN 81.219.94.108:1976 CONNECTED => Never Receive a Closed oder Failed Message Additional i can not find the IP-Adress 81.219.94.108 on https://onionoo.torproject.org/details . The question: What or Who is 81.219.94.108? Another relay? A Bridge? A normal User (Entry Guard)? 81.219.94.108 is only an example, their are many more Nodes with the similar procedure. Thank you for answering my question Y. Krueck (Germany)

1 0

oniontip.com
by Sebastian Urbach 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Hi, I like to suggest adding oniontip.com to the "Donate" section on the tor website. It's a nice possibility to help the Relay-Oerators. Have a nice day. -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat and statesman -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat and statesman

4 4

is a KVM fine for a first quick test to setup a tor exit node
by Toralf Förster 01 Sep '14

01 Sep '14

I do have here a Gentoo Linux and a KVM (Gentoo too) - now I'm wondering if I can just emerge the Gentoo Tor package here in the KVM and play with it or should I prepare few things before to avoid that it will be used by the Tor network immediately ? -- Toralf pgp key: 0076 E94E

2 1

Expired Key
by Sebastian Urbach 31 Aug '14

31 Aug '14

Hi, The key from deb.torproject.org archive is expired, a new one would be nice. The installation information in the docu should be updated to the new key id as well. Thanks -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat and statesman

2 1

Authdir is rejecting routers in this range
by Davíð Steinn Geirsson 30 Aug '14

30 Aug '14

Hi all, I rented a dedicated server to run a tor relay (100Mbit/s) to contribute to the network. On this machine, tor gives messages like these on startup: http status 400 ("Authdir is rejecting routers in this range.") response from dirserver '<...>'. Please correct. The server is hosted with https://fdcservers.net/. Did I just get unlucky in picking a provider? Is there a way to check these things before spending money on setup + monthly fees? Best regards, Davíð

4 5

Key expired problem - Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
by kingqueen 29 Aug '14

29 Aug '14

I'm experiencing difficulties running apt-get update as it complaints that the repository's key is out of date. Here's the error: W: A error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used. GPG error: http://deb.torproject.org precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: KEYEXPIRED 1409325681 KEYEXPIRED 1409325681 KEYEXPIRED 1409325681 KEYEXPIRED 1409325681 W: Failed to fetch http://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/precise/Release W: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead. When I set the relay up, I used Option Two on this page https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian to install tor and deb.torproject.org-keyring . Updates worked for 10 weeks or so and now don't. I've tried going through the same processes again, to no avail. Any assistance very gratefully received.

2 1

Centos 7
by obx 28 Aug '14

28 Aug '14

There are no packages for centos 7 yet. Is there an ETA? Is there anything we can do/contribute?

3 2

Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same /8?
by Jesse Victors 28 Aug '14

28 Aug '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA384 On 08/27/2014 04:03 PM, tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org wrote: > Not to drift too far off course, but I think you have your masking > back wards or confused at least. > > a /8 is 16M addresses 18.0.0.0/8 for example, so not a small block, > and a /16 has 64K. > > two consecutive /16's say 128.30.0.0/16 and 128.31.0.0/16 make a /15 > (120.30.0.0/15) > > the real concern is administrative control not addressing. for exmaple > both the /8 and /15 mentioned above and some other smaller patches of > addressing are all on MIT campus and part of the same administrative > domain in the sense that all traffic passes through a small set of > routers at some point. Being a university it doesn't imediately imply > root access to all servers. this isn't true of all (or even most) > /8's, nor does even a /24 with 256 addresses need to be in a single > geographic or andministrative zone. > > -Jon Thanks Jon, You're right, I had my ranges weird, even in my title, thanks for the correction. To clarify, because the nodes are physically close to one another, they are in the same /24, namely x.x.x.x - x.x.x.y. Yes, the real issues is the traffic concentration to a specific set of routers, which is why I'm asking. I'm trying to get a sense of where to draw the line, but from the responses so far it looks like I've got room to spare. - -- Jesse V. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCQBmBQJT/lfPXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAYCwH/i6Ci/SS6dpXr703mlajr31C fXX2WOKVWoGGTkPDXkQJM18+uI0DGRaieahmQ99VAGwA8+PAFhq9QsISLZ/Bby9g rZCOkY9E9xel2uu80hiMlP99h4WkjJtbgeX1cGXXOoJq1d+MLHIzQqgzZvmVry2+ piIUsXRO693r+TiU6BzZjnpBm+Omo6BzvOuJmUq34/XztdrGWSfoCvpwlesbMJZc sNGN1N5wQ3U1FcQTkwJc2wVyTpQNyu+tgvZyqwusIwAlH7J9cN/zg+eNZ+3ZpPUv 7DjiKhwQCQUqv/LHC5sK7FmQNELLwXPGvTaflvjfhF9uSBWCAX9JVEBNsHrB1M0= =77pe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same /8?
by Jesse Victors 27 Aug '14

27 Aug '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA384 > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:50:21 +0200 > From: Anders Andersson <pipatron(a)gmail.com> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same /8? > Message-ID: > <CAKkunMYKgXKT1OEbV5Lft9edqLhvAJsbxv7QkHQn6dCbpuj36Q(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jesse Victors > <jvictors(a)jessevictors.com> wrote: > >> 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. > Just want to be clear here: Do you really mean /8 and not /24? There's > only one university I can find with a /8 block. 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. - -- Jesse V. On 08/27/2014 06:00 AM, tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org wrote: > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:24:42 +0200 > From: Moritz Bartl <moritz(a)torservers.net> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same /8? > Message-ID: <53FC98AA.2000607(a)torservers.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Jesse, > > On 08/26/2014 03:47 PM, Jesse Victors wrote: >> > It seems to me that too many nodes under the same ISP is >> > problematic because it concentrates too much traffic in >> > the same AS, but on the other hand, Tor could use more exits. >> > More importantly, how many is too many nodes in the same /8, >> > or in the same /16? Where would you draw the line? > Very good question. Ideally, the Tor client would be AS-aware, and you > would not have to worry about it. For the interested reader, see for > example [1]. Until then, my thinking is that I compare to other > locations. https://compass.torproject.org/ is very helpful for that: For > example, if you group by AS, the largest AS right now (i3d, NL) in > regards to exit capacity has 11%, and OVH tops the overall network at > 10% consensus weight. > > As a rough rule, I'd avoid to push more than 1-2Gbit/s of traffic at one > ISP. On the plus side, as long as you don't top the list, you're > weighing down other locations. And universities are a preferred location. > > Make sure to use the MyFamily statement correctly: Unless relays are on > the same /16, Tor might pick multiple of them for a circuit. Also, if > you want to push more than ~100 Mbit/s on a single machine, you need > AES-NI or run multiple relays, for more than 400 Mbit/s you need to run > multiple relays in any case. The multi-relay initscript can be quite > helpful for that. > > [1] http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#ccs2013-usersrouted > [2] https://www.torservers.net/wiki/setup/server#multiple_tor_processes > > -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/ Thanks Moritz, 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. Thanks for the tips on the multiple Tor instances and the optimization tips. - -- Jesse V. /CS, Network Security / -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCQBmBQJT/e7iXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAu0wIAK3rn17vEWQZTZy5KVBgOnUI TstJAkqO9Wjkfxf++E/5h8OMRdU1f3rV2mArJgGbgc344ttueM8iPntneaK4jI9W 4FrEqiMf7X6boYZXyeG81gYaGT6nf8ePSK5+1xY3pGR+2R3gXbDt/AU/LIZFsL2w r+9znukltzWBudfM76Fzd7jJcrwC+2giguHKU1/oxpKDh1xWuQC4maOYxZexGSLw JFz/O9Ca/CIDH/5Pbm6uJFe3Ec1zzm6z8cgsfBmGY8GHj3xBM8bNttP+a+fW7J5Z W01uoYss6tuw3jhVAp/+LKm4GcXsdtUjJIAX56yvEURCa6L9CbuTYha4cBI4zFw= =OHSc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Ongoing scan from FDCServers block
by linenoiz＠Safe-mail.net 27 Aug '14

27 Aug '14

For the past week or so I've been seeing unsolicited echo replies coming from FDC servers block and one that looks like it is owned by China(?) Most of the entries are from 67.159.54.101 and I am seeing around one per minute. I verified by running tcpdump for a couple minutes (no longer, I'm not an illegal wiretapper!) that I'm not sending echo requests. IPTables is configured to drop and log this invalid traffic. Any idea what they are trying to accomplish? Some convoluted way of pinging me because they don't get an ICMP unreachable back? And why every minute? DENY IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=xxx SRC=67.159.54.101 DST=yyy LEN=40 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x20 TTL=55 ID=61817 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=0 CODE=0 ID=10249 SEQ=0 DENY IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=xxx SRC=67.159.54.101 DST=yyy LEN=40 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x20 TTL=55 ID=61817 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=0 CODE=0 ID=58375 SEQ=0 DENY IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=xxx SRC=67.159.54.102 DST=yyy LEN=40 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x20 TTL=55 ID=39417 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=0 CODE=0 ID=62498 SEQ=0 DENY IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=xxx SRC=50.117.112.42 DST=yyy LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=56 ID=28340 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=0 CODE=0 ID=30728 SEQ=0 DENY IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=xxx SRC=50.117.112.42 DST=yyy LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=56 ID=28334 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=0 CODE=0 ID=30728 SEQ=0 DENY IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=xxx SRC=50.117.112.42 DST=yyy LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=56 ID=28335 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=0 CODE=0 ID=54277 SEQ=0

2 1

managing bandwidth quotum
by Kees Goossens 26 Aug '14

26 Aug '14

Dear all, A question on how to manage a bandwidth quotum of my internet provider. I run a non-exit relay on a hosted server with 1000 GB bandwidth per month. In essence, should I A- only set the AccountingMax, and let the relay figure out the RelayBandwidthRate & RelayBandwidthBurst by itself B- set the AccountingMax, and set RelayBandwidthBurst to whatever the provider will allow (much higher than the average rate) C- set the AccountingMax, and set RelayBandwidthRate to the average rate (quotum/31 days), and optionally set RelayBandwidthBurst D- only set the RelayBandwidthRate to the average rate, and hope that I don’t go too much over my quotum This could perhaps be rephrased as: - is it better to offer a high bandwidth for part of the month and then hibernate, or - should I offer a lower average bandwidth for the whole month? Details: I’ve set “AccountingMax 450 GB” with the appropriate accounting start (conservative, since I log in occasionally too). 450 GB / 31 days => 168 KB / sec average Setting “BandwidthRate 168 KB” seems to severely underutilise the relay. Setting “BandwidthRate 1000 KB”, to force usage of the relay, uses the relay bandwidth at a much larger rate (2670 KB/s consensus weight), and will cause hibernation after ~25 days. Thanks. Kees

3 2

Advantage in more exits in the same /8?
by Jesse Victors 26 Aug '14

26 Aug '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA384 Hey everyone, 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. It seems to me that too many nodes under the same ISP is problematic because it concentrates too much traffic in the same AS, but on the other hand, Tor could use more exits. More importantly, how many is too many nodes in the same /8, or in the same /16? Where would you draw the line? - -- Jesse V. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCQBmBQJT/JACXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAc30H/itZHxdCndyXrynjhCI9N3Y/ jtdQ4V2UVWGe0YdsHBrSibexvZxj9EGtNHAuBNuf9ZPrTV5BXV4/Q0RXRZSp+AZ7 NVCp0/7wv/R/n+1qJqWfD2F0D27pyQoaHTMHSJKWXeVN71F5uM4+ScG5qyGsgsG7 Op9s3K5tYTr4m2WcPoAQke4Gj7Bn4nBIbJP8djPZeQ5ACKIDfBJjlgy6Q7fJE+E7 62GYvRknYVHjWAM6gsYSuHnoBCGPAcYkSWMOyPBf+rt8+J0HCMBja/yvzBMwMiNu jEGK/pFka6j+CKYZuEXIbfBV4MLnbZqaah5e58640rUvwqz5eFvf2pliONpVGY4= =aTsa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

how long till the axe falls on little guard relays?
by starlight.2014q3＠binnacle.cx 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

The guard status of the relay here is hanging on by a thread (consensus 5-in-favor 4-against) and this had me wondering until I read [tor-relays] don't worry (to much) if your relay is loosing the guard flag https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2014-July/005043.html Looking at the Consensus Health page it's clear that about 1000 other relays are also separated from Guard Oblivion by a single vote. I'm curious if anyone knows roughly when the next authority will upgrade to a version with the new criteria and the little guards get the chop.

5 5