[tor-relays] Bad experience with hetzner.de and "Trusted Tor Traceroutes" experiment

[irregulator at riseup.net]

On 01/15/2014 07:00 AM, Anupam Das wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> We are very sorry to hear about the problems our measurements caused. Up
> until yesterday, we had received no reports of them triggering these
> kinds of responses from providers. However, yesterday we heard a very
> similar story from another relay operator using Hetzner.
> 
> Thanks for sharing your experience with the tor-relays community. We
> have also updated our FAQ to inform contributors about this potential
> problem.
> 
> Also, we'd like to help others avoid this while still providing useful
> measurements, if possible. Have you gotten any feedback from Hetzner
> about what rule was triggered and maybe how to avoid it? Do you have any
> ideas about how one might stay below their radar? If it is something
> simple like reducing the measurement rate that would be a great option
> to prevent problems while still providing valuable data about the the
> Tor network.
> 
> We do still hope that most relay operators will be willing to give this
> project a shot. We have received data from over 90 separate IP addresses
> and have gotten 2 negative reports so far, although certainly the issues
> could be more widespread without us being aware. We don't want to add to
> the headaches that can result from running a Tor relay, but on the other
> hand Tor relay operators are probably pretty adept at handling this kind
> of stuff.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Anupam
> 
> 

Hi again,

Anupam I wish I knew how to run the script and avoid any complaints from
Hetzner. Unfortunately Hetzner didn't give us any helpful info. We even
asked them explicitly if rate limiting would be a solution, but there
was no answer on that.

On 01/15/2014 02:20 PM, Paul Görgen wrote:
> Finally scamper was defunct, presumably due to being stopped  two times,
> so I restarted the whole Trusted Tor Traceroutes script on monday with
> PPS=200 (reducing the traceroute rate to 1/5 of the default value). So
> far I did not receive any machine generated abuse reports. I assume the
> packet rate is now below the limit of what the monitoring thinks is a
> netscan. I will report back if I should receive another abuse report
> connected to the experiment.

Paul's answer may indicate that imposing a rate limit to the script's
requests might do the trick.

Greetings.
Alex

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20140115/681a3515/attachment.sig>