- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

iptables stats
by Monkey Pet 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

This machine is dedicated as a tor-relay. Is it normal that the INPUT bytes count is much greater than the OUTPUT bytes or did I configure the iptables wrong? iptables -L -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 6 328 ACCEPT all -- lo any anywhere anywhere 38 2557 ACCEPT icmp -- any any anywhere anywhere 1135 68123 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http 27432 6416K ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https 6274 479K ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ssh 93821 129M ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED 1050 54292 DROP all -- any any anywhere anywhere Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 70579 packets, 36M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

1 0

atx.name relays: MyFamily update required
by nusenu 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

Hi Josef, thanks for adding your 3 relays to the tor network! Please do not forget to set the MyFamily parameter in your torrc files so tor clients are not using your non-exit and exit relays at the same time in a single circuit. If you need help with configuring MyFamily, let us know. Since you are running tor 0.2.5.12 you might also want to consider updating to the recently released version 0.2.9.8. happy relaying, nusenu https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor https://github.com/ornetstats/stats https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan…

1 1

"[warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort" under BSD
by pa011 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

I am running (FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p2) Tor 0.2.8.11 getting following warnings while Self-testing indicates that DirPort is reachable from the outside? Can these warnings be ignored, while Tor is running properly afterwards ? Merry Christmas! Paul Dec 24 13:20:57.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 80%: Connecting to the Tor network Dec 24 13:20:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort. Dec 24 13:20:58.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 85%: Finishing handshake with first hop Dec 24 13:20:58.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 90%: Establishing a Tor circuit Dec 24 13:20:58.000 [notice] Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like client functionality is working. Dec 24 13:20:58.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done Dec 24 13:20:58.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort x.x.x.x:9001 and DirPort x.x.x.x:9030 are reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes -$ Dec 24 13:20:59.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Dec 24 13:20:59.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. Dec 24 13:21:00.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort. Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort. Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort. Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort. Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort. Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort.

3 2

Reset torrc file
by Sec INT 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

Hi I upgraded all relays and exits to 0.2.9.8 but the torrc file was then renamed on all of them when the daemon restarted automatically - this meant the torrc file was then recreated as defaut losing all my settings and all relays exits were not working - this hasnt happened in all other upgrades to new versions but was pretty inconvenient when having to go back and replace all torrc files - is this normal? Cheers Mark B Snaptor.co.uk (non commercial)

3 3

Re: [tor-relays] What's a "useful" relay?
by balbea16 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

Hi There I am actually a little bit confused now. I am one of (as Rana knows) those Pi 3 based OR operators with daily changing IP address. My consensus weight is about 5,000, with a max. of 1,400 connections. I would like to recomment, that the TOR org should publish minimum requirements to run a relay. And, if my kind of relays would bring disadvantage to the network, I would shut it off. So far, I think, that small and large relays in combination are good for anonymity. Mike

3 3

2bithacker.net relays: please specify MyFamily in torrc
by nusenu 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

Hi Chip Marshall, thanks for adding so many new FreeBSD relays! Please do not forget to set the MyFamily parameter in your torrc configuration to tell clients your relays belong to a single operator. Since you know ansible already you might also use it to do that automatically. If you need help with the MyFamily option let us know. thanks, nusenu https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor ornetradar(a)riseup.net: > 2016-12-23 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Up|Ext|JoinTime| IP | AS | CC | ORp | Dirp | OS | Version | Nickname | eFamlen > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1 | 0 | 02:32:38 | 82.196.8.232 | None | nl | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitnlams02 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:32 | 46.101.21.201 | Digital Ocean, | gb | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitgblon01 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:38 | 139.59.0.37 | Digital Ocean, | in | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitinblr01 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:35 | 162.243.115.59 | Digital Ocean, | us | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitusnyc02 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:35 | 45.55.50.151 | Digital Ocean, | us | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitusnyc03 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:35 | 107.170.205.8 | Digital Ocean, | us | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitussfo01 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:34 | 159.203.33.54 | Digital Ocean, | ca | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitcator01 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:37 | 138.68.0.4 | Digital Ocean, | us | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitussfo02 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:34 | 188.166.241.75 | Digital Ocean, | sg | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitsgsin01 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:33 | 46.101.166.19 | Digital Ocean, | de | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitdefra01 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:33 | 188.166.41.46 | Digital Ocean, | nl | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitnlams03 | 1 > 1 | 0 | 02:32:32 | 198.199.72.150 | ServerStack, In | us | 9090 | 9030 | FreeBSD | 0.2.8.11 | 2bitusnyc01 | 1 > Fingerprints: > C3F631DE3EC41854168600AE1AE5728A2EA55CBC,0386ADA6F685FABB04E529C5ED49C3DCFB92A73B,2685BFE15151FEB867E1CD27DCACFB8DA39002E5,D93DDF11BD3F58403A2A94EA62C7FA3D415E9FDF,A144C89AEAD0F9CD38A90A1F2FDF9B21592E6799,F45A1231CD1EC9096FD65142E50B940B3E2B384B,71A61E23D16187ACED135530B606FE052CFF763C,6CF9DFBA9B9304706781F10EB4787DB1BFBFF048,E3BC5F5196C140903D3D46029C2340C79C9BF17C,E7EEA1B771C1DF30684DC200338EA7F6EBAF3858,04FBD9ADF8947F925C4C5D3A57A9B0215251EE7A,E4AE28405E6D1D14E0681491A27FFDDC06643B77 >

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] [tor-r@elays] What's a "useful" relay?
by Rana 24 Dec '16

24 Dec '16

@Ivan >If you think that your relay is underrated or has poor performance try to adjust your hardware/settings. Anyway almost every relay operator has this kind of "operator anxiety". Don't worry. ;) It is not about anxiety. The last thing that would cause anxiety for me is the possibility to find another cool project for my Pi :) >If there were only blazing fast relays it would decrease anonymity because these relays would be placed in some datacenters and operated by small amount of people (entities). >Tor network needs all kinds of relays to be strong. Diversity is about platform, location, connectivity, etc, etc. While I hold the same opinion as you (intuitively) I am interested not in intuition but in in a sober technical analysis, and not in words of encouragement, or in the customary "thank you thank you thank you for running a relay" I hear opinions here that small relays are not really useful, and about small bridges I heard here that they are actually causing DAMAGE. Those opinions were backed by technical arguments, here are a few: - the numerous small relays that change their IP addresses burden the network unnecessarily with frequent re-publishing of their descriptors - small relays that carry a small number of circuits actually DESTROY anonymity since the small number of circuits going through them makes it easier to de-anonymize traffic; - anonymity is much better served by a few large relays since they carry a lot of circuits simultaneously, and for this reason DirAuths try to saturate them before they direct traffic to small relays - the connections through small relays are quickly saturated, making using the internet a horribly slow and unpleasant experience - Isis, the bridge db and bridge authority operator, has asked Tor people who make decisions NOT to recommend that people run bridges on their small residential connections, because the need to re-distribute information about changed IP addresses is a major hurdle towards bridge adoption Or as one DirAuth operator summarized it: "On balance, the very small relays do not contribute enough resources compared to the associated costs to be worthwhile." All of which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying and what was also my intuitive opinion. So I am interested to know if there are solid, TECHNICALLY SOUND opinions in favor of use of small relays. If running a small relay is just for feeling good and displaying political support for privacy rights, then I am outta here. I feel good already and I have other means of expressing my political support. Rana

2 1

Tor Relay on ARM server Marvell Armada 370/XP
by Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) - lists 23 Dec '16

23 Dec '16

Hello, i'm experimenting Tor setup on very cheap servers from scaleaway.com that run a quad-core ARM Marvell Armada 370/XP servers but have unlimited bandwidth. Those are Soc platform: http://natisbad.org/NAS2/refs/Marvell_ARMADA_370_SoC.pdf I saw no information on torproject mailing list about those SOC. I'm trying to push the limits and i saw that those have a crypto acceleration support: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/marvell… However with kernel 4.5.7 it does not really work and loading of marvel-cesa gives out error: [6.841862] marvell-cesa: probe of d0090000.crypto failed with error -22 :( I've only built latest Tor 0.2.9 with -O9 -mcpu=marvell-pj4 -mtune=xscale and the Tor Relay is at https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/82C63C5D61D17557B7C5D0E7FDC545A2B6B6B… . Does someone have experienced optimizing and tuning Tor specifically on ARM processors to understand how far those could be optimized? -naif

5 7

What's a "useful" relay?
by Rana 23 Dec '16

23 Dec '16

So - what's the metric for calling a middle relay "useful"? Is it the total number of bytes that it relays daily? https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400C C6 is sending about 0.85 GB every 24 hours. Is it a "useful" relay?

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
by Rana 23 Dec '16

23 Dec '16

@Patrice: Yes both relays started with brand new identities and the one that is now clinically dead (nickname ZG0) has been wiped out and restarted with a new fingerprint AND a new IP address as I have a dynamic one and I rebooted my router to get a new one). Did not help, so obviously this has everything to do with the network and how dirauths/bwauths test the connection and vote, and absolutely nothing to do with the identity of the relay See my previous messages to confirm that this has absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the Pi, which are a gross overkill for the use of (nickname) GG2 that the dirauths and bwauths allow. -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:57 AM To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: [tor-relays] @Rana - with reference to: Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic Hi, I`ve read your post and questions, also about your 2 Raspberry PIs with the same setting but different locations. I thought about it and my question is: Did these to PIs got a new fresh identity on day zero? If not, it`s worth a try, probably. Kill the old identities and let them by. My fundamental idea is (and that`s why I am writing this): Does my behaviour with the relay (restarting, upgrading, not be onlinening) effect the measurement and therefore the throughput of my relay? Cheers, Patrice _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

7 15