Re: [tor-relays] Advantage in more exits in the same /8?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA384
- -- Jesse V. On 08/27/2014 06:00 AM, tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org wrote:
Ok, so I think 1-2 Gbit/s is a good number, that just seems like an awful lot of data to me and I'd rather see that spread out more diversely of course. I'm aware that no circuit should contain two nodes from the same /16 unless forced to, and the MyFamily value further helps with that. My concern was not with a single circuit using multiple nodes there, but rather many circuits preferring that AS. Diversity helps security. That being said, by your advice I'm nowhere near that threshold, so I could keep going. Thanks for the tips on the multiple Tor instances and the optimization tips. - -- Jesse V. /CS, Network Security / -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCQBmBQJT/e7iXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAu0wIAK3rn17vEWQZTZy5KVBgOnUI TstJAkqO9Wjkfxf++E/5h8OMRdU1f3rV2mArJgGbgc344ttueM8iPntneaK4jI9W 4FrEqiMf7X6boYZXyeG81gYaGT6nf8ePSK5+1xY3pGR+2R3gXbDt/AU/LIZFsL2w r+9znukltzWBudfM76Fzd7jJcrwC+2giguHKU1/oxpKDh1xWuQC4maOYxZexGSLw JFz/O9Ca/CIDH/5Pbm6uJFe3Ec1zzm6z8cgsfBmGY8GHj3xBM8bNttP+a+fW7J5Z W01uoYss6tuw3jhVAp/+LKm4GcXsdtUjJIAX56yvEURCa6L9CbuTYha4cBI4zFw= =OHSc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:44:50AM -0600, Jesse Victors wrote: :Anders, no I literally mean the same /8. The university has its own /16 and recently required another /16, but since my nodes are physically close to one another they are in the same /8. My concern is that too many nodes in a small block can result in a large concentration of Tor circuits in that block. No circuit should use any two nodes from the same /16 unless forced to, so my question really revolved around how many is too many Tor circuits and how much is too much traffic through the same /8 or /16 in people's opinion. Not to drift too far off course, but I think you have your masking back wards or confused at least. a /8 is 16M addresses 18.0.0.0/8 for example, so not a small block, and a /16 has 64K. two consecutive /16's say 128.30.0.0/16 and 128.31.0.0/16 make a /15 (120.30.0.0/15) the real concern is administrative control not addressing. for exmaple both the /8 and /15 mentioned above and some other smaller patches of addressing are all on MIT campus and part of the same administrative domain in the sense that all traffic passes through a small set of routers at some point. Being a university it doesn't imediately imply root access to all servers. this isn't true of all (or even most) /8's, nor does even a /24 with 256 addresses need to be in a single geographic or andministrative zone. -Jon
participants (2)
-
Jesse Victors
-
Jonathan D. Proulx