- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
by Rana 05 Dec '16

05 Dec '16

I have been running a relay with dynamic IP for a month now and quite obviously my relay is severely punished for having a dynamic IP. The IP may change once in several days (currently running over a week with the same IP and I just got my Stable flag back again, about 3 weeks after losing it). The relay's throughput is a tiny fraction (less than 10%) of the actual capacity which I programmed the torrc file to donate. The capacity I wanted to donate is less than the uplink speed of my internet connection (the downlink speed is higher than downlink and is thus irrelevant here). I started with a consensus rating of 21, which went up to 30 and then after a couple of IP changes collapsed to 13. It is now 14, and never went above this again, with the relay running ALL THE TIME stably for a month minus a small number of restarts due to IP changes. As I said, stable IP for a week now and a Stable flag. 1. Why is the relay with dynamic IP punished? This makes zero sense to me. IMHO changing an IP once a week and running stably between such changes is stable enough for all practical purposes. And since the fingerprint of the relay does not change when the IP is changed, dirauths know that this is the same stable node. 2. The "advertised bandwidth" that I see in Atlas has absolutely nothing to do either with the bandwidth that I advertise (it is 3-4 times larger than what I see in Atlas) or with the actual data throughput of my relay (it is 20 times smaller than what I see in Atlas). Can somebody explain this?

11 34

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
by Pascal Terjan 05 Dec '16

05 Dec '16

On 4 Dec 2016 9:58 pm, "Rana" <ranaventures(a)gmail.com> wrote: That was exactly my point, thank you Anemoi. This is the case all over the world, not just in Germany. Unfortunately there seems to be a culture of shooting the messenger here, or accusing him of being “aggressive”, “accusatory”, “claiming entitlement” or (my favorite) “lacking programming skills”, in addition to politely phrased suggestions to ditch my relay and pay for a VPS with a fixed IP. The idea of running a volunteer based network for public good is to use every possible resource offered by volunteers, and if DirAuth algorithms need to be adapted for this, such proposal should be taken seriously. I for one am positive that a huge amount of bandwidth that could have been be donated, is lost this way. My understanding is that the DirAuth servers just measure how it would be for users near them. It seems users from several locations using your relay would not get more than 14KB/s so it would be very bad to send more people to your relay as it would make tor unusable for them. The most likely reason would be that your ISP is lacking good connectivity to a large part of internet (this happens to a number of not so small ISPs) but there could be plenty of other reasons. Still if they see your relay slow, it will be slow for many users too, so it is a good thing to not send those users, whoever the fault it is. If this does not make technical sense (which I doubt but I may be wrong), rephrasing the guidelines and officially saying on the Tor page that operators behind dynamic IP are only welcome if they run bridges would be fine – but this isn’t not the case as of now. I hope Tor developers or whoever runs the Tor project are reading this. *From:* tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] *On Behalf Of *anemoi(a)tutanota.de *Sent:* Sunday, December 04, 2016 9:24 PM *To:* tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org *Subject:* Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor network can not get enough of. _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
by anemoi＠tutanota.de 05 Dec '16

05 Dec '16

In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor network can not get enough of.

12 21

how many tor relay could run on a single machine/IP?
by Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) - lists 04 Dec '16

04 Dec '16

I'm trying to stress some very small dedicated server with ViaNano and Atoms and would like to try out multiple Tor relay with AES hw acceleration to see the limits -naif

5 5

network diversity with freeBSD - pf
by Felix 04 Dec '16

04 Dec '16

> Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. > What do I have to do - how to best set-up a decent strong firewall on a freeBSD Exit? If you run packet filter pf do you want to post the outputs to 'tor-relays' or better to 'lists.nycbug.org/pipermail/tor-bsd/': # freebsd-version -ku ## kernel and userland version # cat /etc/pf.conf and/or # pfctl -vvnf /etc/pf.conf ## n = no execution # top -ab | grep tor # sockstat -l | grep tor # cat /etc/rc.conf | grep defaultrouter # cat /etc/resolv.conf Is your ports tree up to date ? I saw you went for 0.2.9.4-alpha (depracted) on Dec 1st when a newer version was available. 'portsnap fetch update' does it. [] https:// forums.freebsd.org [] https:// www.bsdforen.de [] https:// lists.freebsd.org/pipermail

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
by Greg Moss 04 Dec '16

04 Dec '16

Nothing logical about it. Thats all you get with shitty connection On Dec 4, 2016 1:43 PM, "Rana" <ranaventures(a)gmail.com> wrote: OK thanks, this is beginning to sound logical. What you are saying - correct me if I am wrong - is that since 3 DirAuths gave me fast/hsdir flags while the other 5 didn't and gave me poor weight, you believe that my connectivity with the 5 auths is poor and this is the source of my trouble. If you are right then there is no problem with my relay, no problem with my ISP, and there is a problem somewhere between the countries, and this problem hits specifically my relay. This last piece does not make sense to me but who knows... -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:34 PM To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventures(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this normal? No, sorry, I explained poorly: Your maximum bandwidth is as expected for a middle relay with a similar config. The relay flags are as expected. Your measured bandwidth is not, and indicates an issue with your relay's connectivity to the bandwidth authorities (5 tor clients/relays spread around Europe and North America). Until you fix this issue, your relay will continue to be measured low, because it can not sustain the traffic the tor network needs. It has nothing to do with your IP address changing. Also, it's probably worth mentioning that the Tor network prioritises *client* bandwidth, latency, and security. There are engineering trade-offs between these factors. Using all available relay bandwidth is not a priority: we will happily use less bandwidth to provide better latency or better security. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On > Behalf Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with > dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. >> >> Attn: Kurt Besig >> >> Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on the same Pi. >> >> This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by the current DirAuth algorithms. >> >> I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > Rana, > > Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of that size should expect. > > When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. > > T > > -- > Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) > > teor2345 at gmail dot com > PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B > ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n > xmpp: teor at torproject dot org > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

Dir port not showing
by Sec INT 04 Dec '16

04 Dec '16

Hi On all my relays and Exits I set Dirport as 80 but when I look at Atlas or https://torstatus.blutmagie.de all of them bar one are showing 'none' as Dirport - also the one that does show Dirport 80 also has the V2Dir flag - does this have something to fo with it? If I look at the connections on arm I can see port 80 being used by a number of relays and exits but why is this showing none and have I got a setting wrong somewhere? Cheers Snap

2 2

tornodes.io relays MyFamily misconfiguration
by nusenu 04 Dec '16

04 Dec '16

Hi tornodes.io team, first of all thanks for joining the tor network and running exit relays, this is really appreciated! To help protect tor clients please set the MyFamily parameter in your torrc configuration, if you need help with that let us know. Since managing MyFamily can be a painful task, especially when operating many relays, there are tools and ansible roles to automate that [2]. As you grow please consider also the following: - network diversity (ISP and geographically) You are currently operating in the second most used exit AS, consider using other ISPs as well. We know it is not easy to find cheap reliable exit hosters, compass can help you determining whether a given AS is already used by many other (exit) operators: https://compass.torproject.org - running current tor releases 0.2.4.x and 0.2.5.x are old, consider updating to the latest stable tor release (currently 0.2.8.10). Using the torproject repo (if you are on Debian/Ubuntu [3]) can help you stay on the latest releases. thanks, nusenu [1] https://tornodes.io [2] https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor https://github.com/coldhakca/sync_family [3] https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian.html.en +---------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+ | first_seen | tor_version | nickname | MyFamily | +---------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+ | 2016-11-25 01:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes003 | NULL | | 2016-11-25 15:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes002 | NULL | | 2016-11-26 01:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes001 | NULL | | 2016-11-27 23:00:00 | 0.2.8.9 | TorNodes004 | NULL | | 2016-11-28 20:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes005 | NULL | | 2016-11-28 23:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes006 | NULL | | 2016-11-29 03:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes007 | NULL | | 2016-11-29 15:00:00 | 0.2.4.27 | TorNodes008 | NULL | | 2016-11-29 18:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes010 | NULL | | 2016-11-30 17:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes011 | NULL | | 2016-12-01 16:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes012 | NULL | | 2016-12-02 03:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes009 | NULL | | 2016-12-03 00:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes013 | NULL | | 2016-12-03 02:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes014 | NULL | | 2016-12-03 16:00:00 | 0.2.5.12 | TorNodes015 | NULL | +---------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+

1 0

LLC vis-à-vis Nonprofit
by Kenneth Freeman 04 Dec '16

04 Dec '16

An Idaho nonprofit has expressed guarded interest in Tor. Ideally I'd like them to run an exit node without fuss or bother, but the Tor Project's Tips on Running an Exit Node only covers limited liability corporations (LLCs) regarding the legal/corporate set-up. Is there anything to add, or is that sufficient? Thanks in advance.

3 5

Re: [tor-relays] Outgoing Connections to middle nodes?
by balbea16 03 Dec '16

03 Dec '16

Hi MichaelThanks for the hint. I guess you are totally right! I forgot about the hidden services. Right now I have about 1100 in and out connections, makes totally sense. Mike -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Rana <ranaventures(a)gmail.com> Datum: 03.12.16 14:45 (GMT+01:00) An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Betreff: Re: [tor-relays] Outgoing Connections to middle nodes? -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Michael Armbruster Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 2:10 PM To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Outgoing Connections to middle nodes? On 2016-12-03 at 12:56, balbea16 wrote: > Hi There, > I've got a quick question. I have been running a tor relay since 3 > months. I don't have a guard flag, however many outgoing connections > to non exit relays (i.e. that should be middles than). Does that mean > I run an entry node (without having guard status)? How come? > TNX Mike Hi Mike, you forget about hidden services IN the Tor network. Not every connection tries to connect to domains or services outside the Tor network. So it could be that you are a middle relay having many outgoing connections to so-called rendezvous points. Have a look at this sentence here from [1]: "In general, the complete connection between client and hidden service consists of 6 relays: 3 of them were picked by the client with the third being the rendezvous point and the other 3 were picked by the hidden service." Best, Michael [1] https://www.torproject.org/docs/hidden-services.html.en _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0