On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:04 +0200 Arjan
<n6bc23cpc...@list.nospam.xutrox.com> wrote:
>Scott Bennett wrote:
>[...]
>> Now that you've published your tor bridge's IP address on this list--
>> assuming the one you've shown us is accurate, rather than an appropriate
>> substitution for purposes of sending it to this list--you ought to consider
>> contacting your host company in the U.S. to get them to change the IP address
>> and restart tor using the new IP address. The IP address shown above, if
>> correct, will probably be useless anywhere that access via bridges is needed.
>
>It doesn't matter much. All bridges with static IP address will probably
>end up on block lists eventually.
>
That may or may not be so. But why start out on a block list, thereby
eliminating whatever useful life that address might have had, obviating the
running of a bridge?
You do bring up an important point, though. It would be nice to have
some automated way to have a tor bridge's IP address "expire" and trigger a
DHCP request or some such thing to cancel an IP address assignment and get a
new one whenever a bridge happened to have no circuits through it for a while.
However, because that would involve a lot of activity to proceed *apart from
tor*, there may be no reasonable way to do it, especially given the disruption
of other networking processes likely to be running on the same system. It
remains to be seen how IPv6 access is likely to play out at the ISP customer
level, but perhaps there would be some better way to accomplish that sort of
thing with IPv6. For example, if each customer were automatically assigned
a block of IPv6 addresses, different addresses might be allocated for
different activities on the same system through a single physical interface
(e.g., multiple addresses on jails).
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army." *
* -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 *
**********************************************************************
