Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
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?
On 4 Dec. 2016, at 01:06, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
A slow ramp-up is normal, but you seem to be experiencing something different: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay Given what you said about the flags, it's likely the directory authorities' reachability and stability checks that are removing the flags from your relay: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n851 https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n3170
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.
The Tor bandwidth authorities don't store your relay's IP address, so it's probably not the bandwidth measurements that are the issue: https://gitweb.torproject.org/pytorctl.git/tree/SQLSupport.py#n85
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.
No, that's not strictly true, all the directory authorities know is that it is a node that has access to the same private key. There are advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes: * a changed IP usually means a changed network with different characteristics, * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be just as reachable or stable at the new IP, * stolen keys become much less valuable, * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged. To resolve this issue, I recommend getting a static IPv4 address with your ISP, or renting a cheap VPS with a static IPv4 address.
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?
It's likely related to the fact that your relay is never on the same IP long enough to get the Stable or Fast flags, so no clients use it. But I don't know your relay's fingerprint, so I can only repeat the general advice I have given others with similar questions: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010913.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010928.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010916.html (There are more if you search the list archives.) That should be enough to get you started, if you'd still like specific advice after reading those threads, feel free to let us know your relay's fingerprint. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/4/2016 1:03 AM, teor wrote:
On 4 Dec. 2016, at 01:06, Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
A slow ramp-up is normal, but you seem to be experiencing something different:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay
Given what you said about the flags, it's likely the directory authorities' reachability and stability checks that are removing the flags from your relay:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n851 https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n3170
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.
The Tor bandwidth authorities don't store your relay's IP address, so it's probably not the bandwidth measurements that are the issue:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/pytorctl.git/tree/SQLSupport.py#n85
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.
No, that's not strictly true, all the directory authorities know is that it is a node that has access to the same private key.
There are advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes: * a changed IP usually means a changed network with different characteristics, * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be just as reachable or stable at the new IP, * stolen keys become much less valuable, * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged.
To resolve this issue, I recommend getting a static IPv4 address with your ISP, or renting a cheap VPS with a static IPv4 address.
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?
It's likely related to the fact that your relay is never on the same IP long enough to get the Stable or Fast flags, so no clients use it.
But I don't know your relay's fingerprint, so I can only repeat the general advice I have given others with similar questions:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010913.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010928.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010916.html
(There are more if you search the list archives.)
That should be enough to get you started, if you'd still like specific advice after reading those threads, feel free to let us know your relay's fingerprint.
T
For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's..
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.
On 04.12.16 16:39, Rana wrote:
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.
So just leave your relay running, and when other relays with better connectivity and a higher consensus rate are saturated, yours will start to see more traffic. -Ralph
With bandwidth rating of 14 [FOURTEEN] after 1 month of almost uninterrupted presence, including last 9 days of absolutely stable performance and stable IP, and with Stable flag and with Fast and HSDir votes from three DirAuths? Naah, I do not believe this. Something is broken there and this something is not my relay. -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 6:15 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 04.12.16 16:39, Rana wrote:
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.
So just leave your relay running, and when other relays with better connectivity and a higher consensus rate are saturated, yours will start to see more traffic.
-Ralph
With bandwidth rating of 14 [FOURTEEN] after 1 month of almost uninterrupted presence, including last 9 days of absolutely stable performance and stable IP, and with Stable flag and with Fast and HSDir votes from three DirAuths? Naah, I do not believe this. Something is broken there and this something is certainly not my relay.
On 12/04/2016 10:39 AM, Rana 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.
Perhaps all that other stuff you have running on the Pi is hurting your ability to max out your connection. In any case, as I mentioned on your Reddit post a week or so ago, just because you have X available bandwidth, doesn't mean Tor will be able to use all X. I have some relays on 10 Gbps links. Even if they were only 1 Gbps links, the max traffic I'm seeing right now is about 65 Mbps. Atlas says I'm "advertising" (been measured at) ~140 Mbps. https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/x76slvferal So I'm pushing roughly half that atlas says I could be, and I'm pushing nowhere near the amount my hosting provider says my links are capable of. I've heard (but haven't verified) that clients rarely use non-Stable non-Fast relays. So if you are struggling to maintain those flags, then that would be why you're having trouble getting up to 1.5 Mbps usage. Here is how Stable is determined according to dir-spec https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2267 Finally, I'd like to reiterate teor
* a changed IP usually means a changed network with different characteristics, * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be just as reachable or stable at the new IP, * stolen keys become much less valuable, * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged.
It sounds like your IP is _too_ dynamic for best supporting the network. Thank you for running a relay and please do not be discouraged by numbers. Matt
-----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Matt Traudt Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 6:20 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 12/04/2016 10:39 AM, Rana 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.
Perhaps all that other stuff you have running on the Pi is hurting your ability to max out your connection. In any case, as I mentioned on your Reddit post a week or so ago, just because you have X available bandwidth, doesn't mean Tor will be able to use all X. I have some relays on 10 Gbps links. Even if they were only 1 Gbps links, the max traffic I'm seeing right now is about 65 Mbps. Atlas says I'm "advertising" (been measured at) ~140 Mbps. https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/x76slvferal So I'm pushing roughly half that atlas says I could be, and I'm pushing nowhere near the amount my hosting provider says my links are capable of. I've heard (but haven't verified) that clients rarely use non-Stable non-Fast relays. So if you are struggling to maintain those flags, then that would be why you're having trouble getting up to 1.5 Mbps usage. Here is how Stable is determined according to dir-spec https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2267 Finally, I'd like to reiterate teor
* a changed IP usually means a changed network with different characteristics, * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be just as reachable or stable at the new IP, * stolen keys become much less valuable, * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged.
It sounds like your IP is _too_ dynamic for best supporting the network. Thank you for running a relay and please do not be discouraged by numbers. Matt __________________________________ Thank you Matt but some of your assumptions concerning my relay do not hold water. Yes, I do have a Stable flag. No, my hidden service and my Tor proxy and My wireless access point are NOT hindering the operation of my relay, since I disabled them 3 weeks ago to make sure they do not interfere (and they could not possibly interfere when they were not disabled, their bandwidth, memory and CPU consumption were practically zero). No, my "advertised" (misnomer in Atlas of course, should say "measured", caused much confusion on my side) bandwidth is NOT a small fraction of my real advertised bandwdith, it is about 50% of my advertised bandwidth. No, my actual bandwidth is not just a 2-3 of times less than that measured and reported in Atlas, like in your case. In my case it is 160 [HUNDRED AND SIXTY] times less. Here is how I calculated it: my Atlas "advertised" bandwidth is 100 KB/s (=800 kbit/s). Every 6 hours my relay sends about 14 MB (as reported in heartbeats in the log). Therefore my actual average bandwidth utilization is 5 kbit/s. No, changed IP usually does NOT mean changed network. It usually means dynamic IP which has nothing to do with changes in the network or its performance, or stolen keys. In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken. There are 7000 relays total. Do you know how many Raspberry Pis are out there? Many, many times more, many of them run by privacy enthusiasts with dynamic IP. Tor is flushing them all down the drain but STATES that it wants relays with dynamic IP, too (I saw it somewhere on official Tor Project pages).
Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken.
Please submit a patch. Thanks. Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive. Sebastian
Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch". I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have already done here, in full detail. -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Niehaus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken.
Please submit a patch. Thanks. Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive. Sebastian
Rana, I don’t think ""submit a patch" needs any clarification. Maybe you are a little bit to aggressive in your wording :-) ? I do have a dynamic IP as well on one relay and do know that frustration. Relax Paul Am 04.12.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Rana:
Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch".
I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have already done here, in full detail.
-----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Niehaus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken.
Please submit a patch.
Thanks.
Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive.
Sebastian
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Paul, you may be a very, very smart dude who needs no clarifications and I may be a passive aggressive liberal fascist but you are totally wrong - I have NO idea what "submit a patch" means in whatever jargon you are using. Submit what? To whom? Where? In what form? -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of pa011 Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:38 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP Rana, I don’t think ""submit a patch" needs any clarification. Maybe you are a little bit to aggressive in your wording :-) ? I do have a dynamic IP as well on one relay and do know that frustration. Relax Paul Am 04.12.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Rana:
Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch".
I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have already done here, in full detail.
-----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Niehaus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken.
Please submit a patch.
Thanks.
Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive.
Sebastian
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Rana I don't think there's more anyone can do here. I think people here have done a good job explaining _why_ you see what you see. If you would like to see something change, it would be a good idea to go to https://trac.torproject.org, create an account (or use the cypherpunks one), and open a ticket stating facts such as - where you saw that the Tor Project saying they want relays with dynamic IPs - your reasoning for why teor's 4 bullet points about "advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes" are not valid If the Tor Project really said they want relays with dynamic IPs, maybe the wording needs to be modified. I imagine, for instance, they might have said dynamic IPs are good for bridges. In any case, your ticket will be best received if doesn't have a demanding/entitled/accusatory tone and has concrete ideas for what should be done. Thank you for running a relay and please do not be discouraged by numbers. Best Matt On 12/04/2016 01:46 PM, Rana wrote:
Paul, you may be a very, very smart dude who needs no clarifications and I may be a passive aggressive liberal fascist but you are totally wrong - I have NO idea what "submit a patch" means in whatever jargon you are using. Submit what? To whom? Where? In what form?
-----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of pa011 Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:38 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Rana, I don’t think ""submit a patch" needs any clarification.
Maybe you are a little bit to aggressive in your wording :-) ?
I do have a dynamic IP as well on one relay and do know that frustration.
Relax
Paul
Am 04.12.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Rana:
Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch".
I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have already done here, in full detail.
-----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Niehaus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken.
Please submit a patch.
Thanks.
Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive.
Sebastian
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 06:16, Matt Traudt <sirmatt@ksu.edu> wrote:
If you would like to see something change, it would be a good idea to go to https://trac.torproject.org, create an account (or use the cypherpunks one), and open a ticket stating facts such as
- where you saw that the Tor Project saying they want relays with dynamic IPs - your reasoning for why teor's 4 bullet points about "advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes" are not valid
If the Tor Project really said they want relays with dynamic IPs, maybe the wording needs to be modified. I imagine, for instance, they might have said dynamic IPs are good for bridges.
Also, Rana, perhaps your set would be more valuable to clients as a bridge than a relay? But that's a problem for clients when your IP address changes, because they then lose access to your bridge. (Unless they ask the bridge authority for your new descriptor. I'm not sure if that code works the way we want it to - I don't know how often we test it.) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 04.12.2016 21:57, teor wrote:
Also, Rana, perhaps your set would be more valuable to clients as a bridge than a relay?
But that's a problem for clients when your IP address changes, because they then lose access to your bridge.
(Unless they ask the bridge authority for your new descriptor. I'm not sure if that code works the way we want it to - I don't know how often we test it.)
T
I think it would be interesting see as to whether allowing bridges to have dynamic IPs (or even encouraging it) would make them harder to block, and would make it really easy for people to contribute to the network in this small way? Or at least, having a mostly dynamic IP - some devices change their IP address more frequently than others, if my understanding is correct? Duncan
I think it would be interesting see as to whether allowing bridges to have dynamic IPs (or even encouraging it) would make them harder to block, and would make it really easy for people >to contribute to the network in this small way? Or at least, having a mostly dynamic IP - some devices change their IP address more frequently than others, if my understanding is correct?>
Duncan
I have heard this theory before and I do not believe it is correct. The dynamic IPs do not change every hour, it usually takes many days or even weeks. So the contribution of IPs being randomly changed to the difficulty of their enumeration by censors would be marginal at best. This COULD be useful if DirAuths would (a) stop punishing relays behind dynamic IPs (b) start campaigning and encouraging people with dynamic IPs and Raspis to run bridges and (c) raise the reputation of the bridges behind dynamic IPs according the novelty of their IP. So bridges with more recently changed IPs would get a higher priority in getting bridge traffic. Combined with intelligent assignment of either obfs4 or meek this would screw the Chinese (and soon the Russian) censors over big time, because they would be chasing an elusive army of Raspis with ever changing IPs... Counter-attacks and counter-counter-measures should be studied though, as adversaries could respond by establishing hundreds of rogue bridges with dynamically changing IPs... Rana _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Am 04.12.2016 um 19:46 schrieb Rana:
Paul, you may be a very, very smart dude who needs no clarifications and I may be a passive aggressive liberal fascist but you are totally wrong - I have NO idea what "submit a patch" means
On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time.
What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything. -Ralph
On 12/04/16 13:39, Ralph Seichter wrote:
On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time.
What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything.
Woah. I think this discussion got a little out-of-hand quickly. Rana's point about the desirability of dynamic IPs is certainly of-interest to a wide array of people. Raising it is a worthwhile question or contribution in my humble opinion. The point is worth a discussion and feedback. Not everyone running a relay should be technically required to submit a diff when raising a point. There are certainly software projects that are quick to reply with that.... (ahem). A more productive direction might be pointing point https://trac.torproject.org/. It's worth noting that replying to what is likely a common thought among a lot of relay operators, you are not only replying to Rana, but to hosts of people who stumble upon this thread from the archives. g -- 5F77 765E 40D6 5340 A0F5 3401 4997 FF11 A86F 44E2
Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming skills"? -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:40 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time.
What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything. -Ralph _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
There isn't. On Dec 4, 2016 12:50 PM, "Rana" <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote: Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming skills"? -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:40 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote:
In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time.
What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything. -Ralph _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Am 04.12.2016 um 19:50 schrieb Rana:
Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming skills"?
This requirement does not exist. But there if you want make tor behave differently than it does, programming skills are welcome (but not necessary).
[tor] should say so and I would stop wasting my time. [...] Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken.
Telling "tor" what it has to do will not work. For sure. Contribute nothing - expect nothing. Nobody feels obliged to change the code just to make tor behave as you like under your setup. (yes, I know, you are at least willing to contribute your bandwidth). You have to convince someone that your needs are worth to be implemented or just implement them on your own. Listening to explanations why tor behaves like it does and repeating your demands is possibly not the best way to contribute. Sebastian
On 04.12.16 19:50, Rana wrote:
Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming skills"?
Who said there is? There is, however, an incentive (I'd even call it a requirement) to be polite when posting on a public mailing list. An accusatory or hostile tone is unlikely to result in helpful responses. -Ralph
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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? -----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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
(Please post under others' answers, it makes the discussion read more clearly.)
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:43, Rana <ranaventures@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…
Relays in your country might be rare. And it's entirely possible your relay has an issue. Or your broadband router or provider. I'll repeat myself: Speed tests don't test the things tor needs. The 5 tor bandwidth authorities say your relay can't handle much bandwidth. They say it can sustain around 14KB/s when they check. This might mean your Pi or your broadband router is overwhelmed with too many connections. Do you know what the maximum connection capacity is on your router and your relay? Can you increase it to at least 8000? Or it could be that your latency to Europe and North America is high. (Relays in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand have similar issues.) Tim
-----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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps this IS in fact normal. I ran a Tor relay on a Raspberry Pi for a while. My speed was about 1Mbps max, similar to your 1.5Mbps. I saw minimal traffic, and the consensus weight never went above 20. I'm not running a relay at home anymore because of the slow speeds. The configuration guide mentions having at least 250KBytes or 2Mbps, and even relays that have 2Mbps probably won't see much traffic since there's plenty of faster middle relays. On Dec 4, 2016 3:12 PM, "Rana" <ranaventures@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? -----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@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventures@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On 04.12.2016 22:35, Tristan wrote:
Perhaps this IS in fact normal. I ran a Tor relay on a Raspberry Pi for a while. My speed was about 1Mbps max, similar to your 1.5Mbps. I saw minimal traffic, and the consensus weight never went above 20.
I'm not running a relay at home anymore because of the slow speeds. The configuration guide mentions having at least 250KBytes or 2Mbps, and even relays that have 2Mbps probably won't see much traffic since there's plenty of faster middle relays.
Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by the equivalent of a piece of string! They're suitable for a small mail or web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large application. Duncan
Again, bits or bytes? If the original Raspberry Pi can push 1MByte, that's 8Mbits, so you could get 4Mbits both ways. On Dec 5, 2016 9:08 AM, "Duncan Guthrie" <dguthrie@posteo.net> wrote:
On 04.12.2016 22:35, Tristan wrote:
Perhaps this IS in fact normal. I ran a Tor relay on a Raspberry Pi for a while. My speed was about 1Mbps max, similar to your 1.5Mbps. I saw minimal traffic, and the consensus weight never went above 20.
I'm not running a relay at home anymore because of the slow speeds. The configuration guide mentions having at least 250KBytes or 2Mbps, and even relays that have 2Mbps probably won't see much traffic since there's plenty of faster middle relays.
Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by the equivalent of a piece of string! They're suitable for a small mail or web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large application.
Duncan _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-----Original Message-----
From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Guthrie
Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by the equivalent of a piece of string! >They're suitable for a small mail or web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large application.
Duncan
I am pretty sure your info is out of date. The $35 Raspi3 has four 1.2 GHz cores and 1GB RAM. On my Raspi (that admittedly does not see much traffic) CPU utilization hovers somewhere around 1% and total memory utilization by Tor and the rest of Linux together is 11%. Which is irrelevant since Tor network will not let it even near 1 mbit/s because - I believe - of its dynamic IP I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization Rana
Hi all Just to add some perspective... I'm running a relay on dynamic ip. My ISP will usually not change my IP assignment as long as it's in use. The platform in use is not Rasberry Pi, but Odroid C2. Also an ARM, but a bit more powerful one. Kind regards On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 16:36 Rana <ranaventures@gmail.com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Guthrie
Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by the equivalent of a piece of string! >They're suitable for a small mail or web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large application.
Duncan
I am pretty sure your info is out of date. The $35 Raspi3 has four 1.2 GHz cores and 1GB RAM. On my Raspi (that admittedly does not see much traffic) CPU utilization hovers somewhere around 1% and total memory utilization by Tor and the rest of Linux together is 11%. Which is irrelevant since Tor network will not let it even near 1 mbit/s because - I believe - of its dynamic IP
I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization
Rana
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization
let me tell: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D5... https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17... are sharing the same dynamic IP on a Rasp2 -cut every 24 hours day rx | tx | total | avg. rate ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- 05.12.2016 27,20 GiB | 28,39 GiB | 55,59 GiB | 5,40 Mbit/s that is slight above 1 Mbit/s :-) Best regards Paul
On 12/4/2016 7:39 AM, Rana 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.
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Late to the party however,I'm sorry if you interpreted my response as being negative, actually I was offering one possible solution. Welcome to the Community and thanks for running a Tor relay.
participants (11)
-
Duncan Guthrie -
George -
Kurt Besig -
Matt Traudt -
pa011 -
r1610091651 -
Ralph Seichter -
Rana -
Sebastian Niehaus -
teor -
Tristan