- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Added new relays to my family.
by Jochen 03 Oct '19

03 Oct '19

Hi, just letting everyone know that I've added, in total, 6 new relays to my family: https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/family:94C268630BEDCB64E7F888… During the next few weeks expect around ~1,6Gbit/s total exit capacity. On another note: Is there any update on multithreading for tor relays? I recall sending in a trace to, I think, teor. I know that it's probably not a feature with high priority, just asking if the trace I sent in was useful and if you need anything else ;-) Best Regards, Jochen

3 2

No connections to bridge
by skarz 02 Oct '19

02 Oct '19

I set up a bridge at home on my Raspberry Pi (Raspbian Buster) using [these instructions](https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/bridge/), and I believe everything is configured correctly... But there is no activity in or out of my bridge. Here's some messages I am seeing: > 16:31:26 [NOTICE] Heartbeat: In the last 6 hours, I have seen 0 unique clients. [2 duplicates hidden] > 16:31:26 [NOTICE] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 17:59 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 6.18 MB and received 25.58 MB. [2 duplicates hidden] > 16:04:28 [NOTICE] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. > 13:10:43 [NOTICE] No circuits are opened. Relaxed timeout for circuit 408 (a Testing circuit 3-hop circuit in state doing handshakes with channel state open) to 60000ms. However, it appears the circuit has timed out I know bridges don't see as much activity but is this abnormal?

3 2

Re: [tor-relays] Bridge - how to configure obfs4 both: on IPv4 AND IPv6?
by Roger Dingledine 29 Sep '19

29 Sep '19

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 08:12:43PM +0200, tschador(a)posteo.de wrote: > But with: > > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 <ipv4-addr>:<port> > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 [<ipv6-addr>]:<port> > > obfs4proxy is only listening on the IPv4 address! It looks like you are encountering https://bugs.torproject.org/11211 Alas, I suggest sticking to ipv4 for now -- I think if you got ipv6 working on your obfs4, you would next run into the problem that bridgedb doesn't currently give out ipv6 obfs4 addresses. There's a lot of work waiting for somebody who wants to make ipv6 more of a proper citizen in the Tor world. There's a mention by Sarah of a recent funding proposal which could get that restarted again: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2019-September/002479.ht… Thanks for running a bridge! --Roger

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] My relay is listed offline, but it isn't!
by niftybunny 26 Sep '19

26 Sep '19

$ traceroute6 2a01:4f8:1c0c:45f7::1 connect: No route to host > On 25. Sep 2019, at 17:24, tschador(a)posteo.de wrote: > > Hi, > > after upgrading to Tor version 0.4.1.6-1~d9.stretch+1 and kernel > 4.9.0-11-amd64 on Debian GNU/Linux 9 my relay ist listed as offline. [1] > > I restarted Tor several times, but no change. The log shows (CEST): > --- > Sep 25 13:10:29.000 [notice] Tor 0.4.1.6 opening log file. > Sep 25 13:10:29.432 [notice] Tor 0.4.1.6 running on Linux with Libevent > 2.0.21-stable, OpenSSL 1.1.0k, Zlib 1.2.8, Liblzma 5.2.2, and Libzstd 1.1.2. > … > Sep 25 13:10:33.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is > reachable from the outside. Excellent. > … > Sep 25 13:11:35.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is > reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. > Sep 25 13:11:35.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. > --- > > There are still 150 connects in the moment, slowly decreasing. > > Only two of the authorities show the 'running'-flag for my relay. What's > going on there? > > Regards > > [1] > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/6A7551EEE18F78A9813096E82BF8… > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] My relay is listed offline, but it isn't!
by Roger Dingledine 26 Sep '19

26 Sep '19

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:24:55PM +0200, tschador(a)posteo.de wrote: > after upgrading to Tor version 0.4.1.6-1~d9.stretch+1 and kernel > 4.9.0-11-amd64 on Debian GNU/Linux 9 my relay ist listed as offline. [1] > > Only two of the authorities show the 'running'-flag for my relay. What's > going on there? > > [1] > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/6A7551EEE18F78A9813096E82BF8… My guess is that your ipv4 ORPort is reachable, but that your ipv6 ORPort is not reachable. So you're getting Running votes from the dir auths that don't test ipv6, and the ones that do test ipv6 are declaring you down. For those following at home, if you're in this situation, another useful tool is to go to the search box at the bottom of https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#relayinfo and paste in your fingerprint, to learn more about the individual votes from each directory authority about your relay. Thanks! --Roger

1 0

Measuring the Accuracy of Tor Relays' Advertised Bandwidths
by Rob Jansen 24 Sep '19

24 Sep '19

Hello relay operators! I am planning on performing an experiment on the Tor network to try to gauge the accuracy of the advertised bandwidths that relays report in their server descriptors. Briefly, the experiment involves running a speed test on every relay for a short time (about 20 seconds). Details follow. I plan to run the experiment in about 1 week. Relay operators can opt-out of the speed test by replying on this thread, and we will remove you from the list of relays to scan. Peace, love, and positivity, Rob --- Measuring the Accuracy of Tor Relays' Advertised Bandwidths Motivation ---------- The capacity of Tor relays (maximum available goodput) is an important metric. Combined with mean goodput, it allows us to compute the bandwidth utilization of individual relays as well as the entire network in aggregate. Generally, capacity is used to help balance client load across relays, and relay utilization rates help Tor make informed decisions about how to allocate resources and prioritize performance and scalability improvements. Problem ------- Currently, Tor uses a heuristic measure of unknown accuracy to estimate Tor relay capacity. Each relay keeps track of the maximum goodput it has achieved over any 10 second window in a 24 hour period. This is called the "observed bandwidth". Relays take the minimum of their "observed bandwidth" and their bandwidth rate-limiting configuration and reports the result as the "advertised bandwidth" in their server descriptors. We do not know how well the advertised bandwidth estimates the true relay capacity, but we do know that it represents a lower bound on capacity. Hypothesis ---------- The advertised bandwidth significantly underestimates the true capacity of Tor relays. On average, relays with higher true capacities will be more strongly correlated with capacity underestimation (because it will be less likely that fast relays will have sustained their full capacity over a 10 second period). Experiment ---------- A relay reports its advertised bandwidth in its server descriptor. To test how well these reported numbers represent the true capacity of a relay, we can manually perform a speed test on the relay by initiating the simultaneous download of several large data streams for a period that exceeds 10 seconds. In the report following our test, the relay will report its advertised bandwidth in its server descriptor and the results will be collected and reported by metrics.torproject.org. The experiment involves two steps: running the speed test on a relay under our control, and running the speed test on all relays in Tor network. We will first run the speed test on at least one relay that we control, in order to test that the method is effective and that we can in fact observe a change in the advertised bandwidth reported on metrics.torproject.org. Once we have confidence that our speed test is functioning correctly, and that the metrics pipeline will allow us to gather the results, we will repeat it on all relays in the network. We will conduct the speed tests while minimizing network overhead. We will use a custom client that builds 2-relay circuits. The first relay will be the target relay we are speed testing, and the second relay will be a fast exit relay that we control. We will initiate data streams between a speedtest client and server running on the same machine as our exit relay. The setup will look like: speedtest-client <--> tor-client <--> target-relay <--> exit-relay <--> speedtest-server All components will run on the same machine that we control except for the target-relay, which will rotate as we test different relays in the network. For each target relay, we plan to run the speedtest for 20 seconds in order to increase the probability that the 10 second mean goodput will reach the true capacity. We will measure each relay over a few days to ensure that our speedtest effects are reported by every relay. Although we believe that the overhead of this speed test is in line with regular usage, relay operators can opt-out of the speed test by replying on this thread. Those that opt out will be removed from our list of relays to scan. Analysis -------- Following our speedtest, we will analyze the data collected and reported by Tor metrics. We will compared the advertised bandwidth that each relay reports before our experiment to those reported during our experiment. This will help us test our hypothesis that relays' advertised bandwidth underestimates the true capacity of relays. We will run a statistical correlation analysis on the data to test the strength of the correlation between the previously reported (estimated) relay capacity and relay capacity underestimation. We will report our results to the Tor community. We expect that the results of our experiment will help Tor decide how to allocate resources and will help them plan and prioritize performance improvements. It will also provide insight into the operation of the current load balancing system, which uses advertised bandwidth to produce consensus weights.

12 37

Bridge stats always in multiples of 8
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 23 Sep '19

23 Sep '19

I'm just curious as to why, in the bridge stats, all the country codes show a multiple of 8. Thanks for your time!

2 1

tor
by armik900＠gmail.com 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

hi,what are these relay operators with the same nickname (snap269) but from different countries the vast majority of relays are outdated and do not work С уважением, Станислав

3 2

Sudden bridge activity from Russia and Iran, strange?
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Hello, my new bridge sat for a few weeks with 0 clients. I understand it takes time to begin seeing clients, but all of a sudden within the span of one 6-hour heartbeat period, I picked up 346 clients. Since then, it has been 20-50 every 6 hours. But when I pull the bridge-stats file, it shows 104 from Iran, and 64 from Russia. These two are the overwhelming majority of my clients; all the other countries each have 8. Is this normal, or suspicious?

2 1

SSH scanning on TOR Exit - Nerfing Rules
by AMuse 16 Sep '19

16 Sep '19

Hi all! I'm curious what y'all think of this situation. I have SSH open as an exit port on a TOR exit that my friends and I are maintaining - and of course it's the #1 offender by far in automated abuse notifications we get from our ISP, from peoples' fail2ban servers sending abuse emails. This all seems like a huge waste of time, but that's a separate issue. I'm wondering if nerfing outbound SSH to rate limit will be effective at getting the SSH scanning bots to stop using my exit in their circuit, while leaving SSH open for actual humans who need to SSH while using TOR. I've implemented, as a test, rate limiting outbound on the SSH port. What do you think the impact of this will be? No impact? Losing exit status because connections on SSH die? Something else entirely? Here's the pf rules in question: pass in on $ext_if proto {tcp udp} from any to any port 9000:9150 keep state pass in on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port 22 keep state pass in on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port 80 keep state pass out on $ext_if from any to any keep state pass out on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port 22 keep state (max-src-conn 25, max-src-conn-rate 1/5 )

3 2

Re: [tor-relays] Short Research Survey
by entensaison＠use.startmail.com 13 Sep '19

13 Sep '19

Hi! Most online surveys ask the participants to confirm that their replies can be used after the last question of the survey. I would recommend you to do that, too. Sometimes people give random answers because they are curious about the survey's questions. ;-) > Dear Tor relay operators, > > We are a team of researchers at MIT, and we would like to ask Tor relay > operators to participate in a short and anonymous survey (no personal > information or IP address collected). This study is focused on the > importance of providing anonymity by volunteers in various contexts, > and will take no more than 5-10 minutes to finish. > > You can learn more and take the survey at this link: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6W3YXSCnqMVGPs1 > > Your input is very valuable to our study, and we look forward to your > feedback. > > Please feel free to email us at anon-research(a)mit.edu if you have any > questions. > > (Our survey platform unfortunately uses JavaScript. We apologize for > being unable to switch it off. We would be grateful for your > participation if you are comfortable taking the survey.)

1 0

Running on a Raspberry Pi
by William Denton 13 Sep '19

13 Sep '19

I'm reconfiguring things and decided to move a relay from an old laptop to a Raspberry Pi. I tried it on a Pi Zero W, which is very cheap but also pretty slow, and it just didn't work. Now I'm trying it on a Pi Four (which has four CPUs and two gigs of RAM) and so far it's working, though it's not moving as much traffic as on the laptop. There I was doing about 25 gigs a day, and so far now I'm doing about four or five with the same configuration. Anyone else running a relay on a Pi? It's cheap and pretty easy to set up, even if it turns out not to be an enormous contribution to the network. Bill -- William Denton :: Toronto, Canada --- Listening to Art: https://listeningtoart.org/ https://www.miskatonic.org/ --- GHG.EARTH: http://ghg.earth/ Caveat lector. --- STAPLR: http://staplr.org/

5 5

Re: [tor-relays] Running on a Raspberry Pi
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 13 Sep '19

13 Sep '19

If you're having any heat issues with the Pi 4, may I suggest the aluminum heatsink case from flirc.tv? It took my average temps down about 10°C. Beautiful case, great price for what it does. -------- Original Message -------- On Sep 13, 2019, 8:00 AM, wrote: > Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tor-relays-owner(a)lists.torproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Running on a Raspberry Pi (William Denton) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:50:22 -0400 (EDT) > From: William Denton <wtd(a)pobox.com> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Running on a Raspberry Pi > Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1909121945030.14928(a)shell.miskatonic.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > On 10 September 2019, ronqtorrelays(a)risley.net wrote: > >> From what I have read about the Pi 4, heat is a big issue. If you're not doing >> something to cool it, your CPU speed is likely being throttled due to >> overheating. > > I'm not doing any cooling except for not having it in case. I'm in Canada, and > with winter coming I can leave it hanging inside a window, and that'll cool it > down some. > > The speed on the relay has picked up to about a quarter of what it was (so about > six gigs a day), and I'll wait and see if it continues to increase, and then > maybe fiddle with the config. > > So, if a Pi is cheap to buy and easy to use and maintain, I'm happy to use it > for a relay, even if it's not a major contributor to the network. > > Bill > -- > William Denton :: Toronto, Canada --- Listening to Art: https://listeningtoart.org/ > https://www.miskatonic.org/ --- GHG.EARTH: http://ghg.earth/ > Caveat lector. --- STAPLR: http://staplr.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > ------------------------------ > > End of tor-relays Digest, Vol 104, Issue 15 > *******************************************

1 0

ORPort
by Anonforpeace 12 Sep '19

12 Sep '19

Hello: Hope someone can help me. I'm trying to configure a bridge and I've followed all the instructions and I've chosen several ports and none of them are reachable. I've used the test site that Tor lists on its site. "Your server has not managed to confirm that your its ORPort is reachable." Each port I list on the test site says unreachable. What am I missing? The instructions are pretty straightforward. Thanks

4 6

Short Research Survey
by Anon-research 12 Sep '19

12 Sep '19

Dear Tor relay operators, We are a team of researchers at MIT, and we would like to ask Tor relay operators to participate in a short and anonymous survey (no personal information or IP address collected). This study is focused on the importance of providing anonymity by volunteers in various contexts, and will take no more than 5-10 minutes to finish. You can learn more and take the survey at this link: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6W3YXSCnqMVGPs1 Your input is very valuable to our study, and we look forward to your feedback. Please feel free to email us at anon-research(a)mit.edu if you have any questions. (Our survey platform unfortunately uses JavaScript. We apologize for being unable to switch it off. We would be grateful for your participation if you are comfortable taking the survey.)

3 2

Re: [tor-relays] Running on a Raspberry Pi
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 10 Sep '19

10 Sep '19

My primary relay runs on a Pi 3B. 903CA67D0DEB74CFBB01432840A26CB8C6C18FDF. According to the logs, it's sending and receiving a total of about 130 GB per day. A Pi 4 should definitely be able to handle it. Pi Zeroes had a conflict with the name of the CPU architecture and so Tor apparently never worked quite right on them. I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the relay just had to reset its advertised bandwidth and has to build back up again. Hope this helps.

1 0

FW: Lots of spam on new tor exit node.
by email-group＠tor.bband.net 10 Sep '19

10 Sep '19

I have recently setup a new tor exit node but since about an hour of setting it up it has been almost maxed out with spam. https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/4AFECB973C2268D5074D8DEDAF0BD B604C89ED50 How can I combat it? I turned the node off for about an hour from about 6.30am GMT but the user reconnected. From the looks of it they are connecting through the tor network. DNS logs are looking like it is targeting illicit Russian drug forums almost all with .biz domains.

3 3

What could cause a huge clock skew (9 days) across Tor restarts - anyone else experienced something like this?
by s7r 08 Sep '19

08 Sep '19

Hello, I'd like to hear if anyone else experienced this and has an idea of what the cause might be. I did not oped a ticket about this yet because I am not sure there is a problem in Tor, and it eventually healed by itself. The relay was running just fine. Server had an accurate time before upgrade and time service ntp was running. I only did an upgrade to Tor from the latest nightly build and of course it does a service stop -> upgrade -> service start. After Debian finished installing the new Tor, I did as usual: check the log file to see that all is OK and circuits were built and descriptors published, etc. I saw this: The log before restart was reporting: Sep 06 21:03:16.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit now. Sep 06 21:03:17.000 [notice] Delaying directory fetches: We are hibernating or shutting down. Sep 06 21:03:46.000 [notice] Clean shutdown finished. Exiting. [skipped boring part intentionally] Aug 28 07:40:07.000 [warn] Our clock is 9 days, 11 hours, 20 minutes behind the time published in the consensus network status document (2019-09-06 23:00:00 UTC). Tor needs an accurate clock to work correctly. Please check your time and date settings! Aug 28 07:40:07.000 [warn] Received ns flavor consensus with skewed time (CONSENSUS): It seems that our clock is behind by 9 days, 11 hours, 20 minutes, or that theirs is ahead. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time, timezone, and date settings. Aug 28 07:40:07.000 [warn] Problem bootstrapping. Stuck at 0% (starting): Starting. (Clock skew -818406 in ns flavor consensus from CONSENSUS; CLOCK_SKEW; count 2; recommendation warn; host ? at ?) Aug 28 07:40:08.000 [warn] Our clock is 9 days, 12 hours, 20 minutes behind the time published in the consensus network status document (2019-09-07 00:00:00 UTC). Tor needs an accurate clock to work correctly. Please check your time and date settings! Aug 28 07:40:08.000 [warn] Received microdesc flavor consensus with skewed time (CONSENSUS): It seems that our clock is behind by 9 days, 12 hours, 20 minutes, or that theirs is ahead. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time, timezone, and date settings. Aug 28 07:40:08.000 [warn] Problem bootstrapping. Stuck at 0% (starting): Starting. (Clock skew -822006 in microdesc flavor consensus from CONSENSUS; CLOCK_SKEW; count 3; recommendation warn; host ? at ?) and then Sep 06 21:04:50.000 [notice] Starting with guard context "default" ...proceed to normal start and everything as usual from now... So, Tor had the time Sep 06 21:03:46.000 before restart. After restart, it thought it had Aug 28 07:40:07.000 and then Aug 28 07:40:08.000 and then it healed and reported Sep 06 21:04:50.000. This is kind of odd. What could be the reason for this? The server is just a Debian machine that runs Tor and nothing else. Thanks!

3 4

Re: [tor-relays] Operator straw poll: Reasons why you use Tor LTS versions?
by starlight.2018q2＠binnacle.cx 07 Sep '19

07 Sep '19

My relays track current stable, though I prefer going slow updating unless a major CVE/TROVE lands. LTS is beneficial for many reasons and, from the enthused developer perspective perhaps best viewed as "necessary evil." Rather than thinking about killing LTS, is better to think about ways to campaign for and facilitate rapid migration to a latest LTS release when very important features arrive. Possibly this translates to early retirement via blacklisting of the eldest version.

1 0

Tor exit relay in Finland still being attacked
by potlatch 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

I had TorExitFin [0] down for a few days hoping the non-Tor Iranian intruders would wander off. I restarted it today and before NYX could come up there were 257 Iranian IPs present (nicely automated!). The IP addresses range over all of the IP addresses allotted to Iran so their usage must come from a high authority to get that kind of access. NYX communications page showed that none of these had hashed fingerprints. At the same time 3 IPs came up from other countries with fingerprints. Should I leave this shut down for the security of the network? -potlatch [0] 9B31F1F1C1554F9FFB3455911F82E818EF7C7883 Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

2 1

Low-bandwidth relay
by John Williams 04 Sep '19

04 Sep '19

I've been running tor on my openwrt-based home router (along the lines of 'anonabox'), and I configured it as a non-exit relay, because I thought why not - every little helps, right? I set a very low bandwidth limit, but it was using most of the configured bandwidth, so I figured it was helping. A few days ago I got an email saying my tor version was EOL, so I upgraded from version 0.3.2.10 to 0.4.1.5 (which required upgrading openwrt). Now tor is still working fine for me, but I don't see any network traffic when I'm not using it, so it is evidently not routing any third-party traffic any more. I don't see any errors in the log. Is this (a) expected behaviour because the previous traffic was just a bug in the old version of tor, or (b) an indication that there is something wrong with my upgraded installation? Any suggestions about where I should look would be welcome. I'm considering reconfiguring my system to be a bridge instead of a router, but I would prefer to sort out any possible problems with what I've got now, before making further changes.

2 1

end-of-life relays will be removed from the network eventually
by nusenu 03 Sep '19

03 Sep '19

Patches [1] are being prepared to remove Tor relays running end-of-life versions of Tor eventually. Affected relays as of 2019-09-03 16:00 UTC #relays 1276 CW Fraction 13.25 % Guard 16.91 % Exit 2.19 % Want to know if your relay is affected? Here is a list of affected relays (updated daily): https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetStats/eolrelays The Tor Relay Guide has instructions to help you stay on maintained Tor releases. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTor… [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31549 Tor people are sending out emails (cc'ing network-health): https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/network-health -- https://twitter.com/nusenu_ https://mastodon.social/@nusenu

1 1

Re: [tor-relays] Status of "new" defect #30767 Custom obfs4 bridge does not work on Tor Browser for Android
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

Ah, thank you for the reply. Well, I will continue to donate to and support the tor project whenever I can.

1 0

Status of "new" defect #30767 Custom obfs4 bridge does not work on Tor Browser for Android
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

I hate to be that guy, but I was wondering if there is any progress on resolving this defect? I'm sure it's not a front burner type of problem, but it would be nice to be able to use the Android app as intended. Using Orbot/Orfox as a backup feels like a poor workaround when there's an official Tor browser app. If I'm being impatient, just let me know - I'm not familiar with what's normal during this process. Thanks in advance.

3 2

Fast flag - wrong speed in dir-spec.txt?
by [REDACTED] 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

Hi Torproject, as far as i can see my relay currently can advertise 560 KiB/s. That are 573,44 KB/s. 43C7BC2E17FB26B204EC0BD9AA784E4736979087 Following your dir-specs it should get the "Fast" flag if it can provide more than 100KB/s. https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2595 At my other relay i already saw it providing 562 KiB/s and it got the "Fast" flag. A9DB853547A6459AB5190E62BF2F7B8F068FEB0A It seems the limit is above 560 KiB/s? If i remember it right then i already read somewhere that the requirements are now higher than 100 KB/s so i guess your documentation is wrong? Am i missing something why my relay with 560 KiB/s dont get the "Fast" flag?

3 3