Re: [tor-relays] New Relay Operator: Hostname

[Roman Mamedov]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:16:38 -0800
co...@awakening.io wrote:

> I would like the hostname to be public, I wonder if I have misconfigured
> as the hostname does not display here:
> 
> https://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=b0a8f23372309d3589e70bd3c2e48c5b6fc3ec36
> 
> I have the following in my configuration:
> 
> ORPort 198.100.159.72:9000
> DirPort 198.100.159.72:9001
> Address tor-exit-01.awakening.io
> 
> Any thoughts?

The hostname is taken from reverse DNS (aka PTR record) of the IP address, but
in your case:

$ host 198.100.159.72
Host 72.159.100.198.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

The owner of that IP address has to set the reverse DNS record, or in your
case, it's likely you can set that yourself via a function in your hoster's
(OVH) control panel.

In any case, you don't need the "Address" line with hostname in torrc.

-- 
With respect,
Roman
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] New Relay Operator: Hostname

[colin]

Hello!

I have just started up a new exit node using nusenu's wonderful Ansible
scripts (thank you kindly).

I would like the hostname to be public, I wonder if I have misconfigured
as the hostname does not display here:

https://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=b0a8f23372309d3589e70bd3c2e48c5b6fc3ec36

I have the following in my configuration:

ORPort 198.100.159.72:9000
DirPort 198.100.159.72:9001
Address tor-exit-01.awakening.io

Any thoughts?

- Colin


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Bandwidth Measurement

[teor]

> On 21 Feb 2017, at 04:39, Marcobr  wrote:
> 
> as far as I know, the DAs running the bwauth scripts conduct hourly bandwidth 
> measurements.

Measurements occur on a random basis, I think every bandwidth authority
tries to measure every relay at least once or twice every week.

Every hour, recent measurements are averaged to produce a bandwidth
weight for every relay. Then the directory authorities vote on these
bandwidths, and produce a consensus containing the low-median.

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






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Bandwidth Measurement

[Julien ROBIN]

Hi,

I think that in this case, every existing connection and transfers act 
as "best effort" (it means that used bandwidth for some connection 
aren't absolutely reserved),  the new transfer is making a place by 
reducing just a little bit the others connection's available speed.


If 50 active connection are using 1 MB/s each at the same time, with a 
total amount of 50 MB/s which is the maximum of a given server for 
example, then a new connection trying to get 1 MB/s will make the 50 
Megabits divided by 51, then the usable bandwidth for all connection 
becomes 0,98 MB/s in the place of 1 MB/s


When your relay is very overused and severe congestion occurs, then the 
bandwidth measurement will be very poor, this will reduce the weight of 
your relay in the consensus in order to reduce the congestion. The 
algorithm is designed to give the ideal consensus weight for your relay 
in order to be as close as possible of your maximum available bandwidth, 
without placing too much users on it (with too much users on it, the 
total used bandwidth will be at the maximum, but each user get a painful 
browsing experience because the available bandwidth per user becomes too 
weak)


Bye !

Julien

PS : if the advertised bandwidth is incorrect then congestion will occur 
and the consensus weight of your relay will be decreased because of poor 
performance during measurements, that's how possible 
cheating/disturbance is avoided in this case, I think.


I think there is some documentation on this subject, by searching if you 
have some time and want to know more on this subject.



Le 20/02/2017 à 18:39, Marcobr a écrit :

Hey everyone,

as far as I know, the DAs running the bwauth scripts conduct hourly 
bandwidth measurements. Depending on the advertised bandwidth of the 
relay node, a smaller/bigger file gets transmitted on a custom 
2-hop-circuit and the transmission time determines the actual bandwidth.


Now, here is my problem: Assuming that my relay node advertised 
50MB/s, and is currently at 98% load (49 MB/s). To conduct the 
measurement, the bwauth script will send a 8MB file over my relay, but 
since it can only serve another 1MB/s, how will the bwauth script 
determine that my advertised 50MB/s is correct?



___
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] Bandwidth Measurement

[Marcobr]

Hey everyone,

as far as I know, the DAs running the bwauth scripts conduct hourly bandwidth 
measurements. Depending on the advertised bandwidth of the relay node, a 
smaller/bigger file gets transmitted on a custom 2-hop-circuit and the 
transmission time determines the actual bandwidth.

Now, here is my problem: Assuming that my relay node advertised 50MB/s, and is 
currently at 98% load (49 MB/s). To conduct the measurement, the bwauth script 
will send a 8MB file over my relay, but since it can only serve another 1MB/s, 
how will the bwauth script determine that my advertised 50MB/s is correct?___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29

[contact]

On 2017-02-20 04:00, tor-relays-requ...@lists.torproject.org wrote:

Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tor-relays-requ...@lists.torproject.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
tor-relays-ow...@lists.torproject.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. large server farms (cont...@charlieluna.com)
   2. Re: large server farms (teor)
   3. Re: large server farms (Duncan)
   4. Re: large server farms (I)
   5. Re: large server farms (niftybunny)
   6. Re: large server farms (anondroid)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:44:25 -0800
From: cont...@charlieluna.com
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: [tor-relays] large server farms
Message-ID: <457551c757ee4a355917f577d2f9a...@charlieluna.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

I'm highly interested in us creating a large server farm for Tor
services. The only question is how to get the coaxial cable ran from 
the

server facility to each subscriber. The power requirements could be
handled by solar and wind systems and any water needs can be created by
means of water collection systems and solar heat collectors for hot
water. I think it's totally feasible. What do you guys think?

Also, I'm very hardcore about taking back the internet for the people.
No more of this for-profit stuff where we get throttled and our freedom
of speech is abridged. Internet for the people is a means of freedom of
speech. Let's take it back.


--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:47:46 +1100
From: teor <teor2...@gmail.com>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] large server farms
Message-ID: <e696ca8c-a1a6-4d14-8b3c-e901c81e7...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"



On 20 Feb 2017, at 11:44, cont...@charlieluna.com wrote:

I'm highly interested in us creating a large server farm for Tor 
services. The only question is how to get the coaxial cable ran from 
the server facility to each subscriber


Tor is a decentralised network, that's designed to be secure even if
users aren't directly connected to their network entry points.

Can you tell us what you're trying to achieve for users by centralising
Tor services like this?

(And what services you intend to provide?)

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




-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL:
<http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20170220/a3cbec03/attachment-0001.sig>

--

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:41:47 +
From: Duncan <dguth...@posteo.net>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] large server farms
Message-ID: <e6b68354-6c4d-94ed-1eab-5c60a8c9e...@posteo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi

This seems like it would centralize some of the network. There are
already concerns about regular data-centers being able to access Tor
relays - someone malicious (yourself, someone compelling you, another
party etc) could then have access to lots of Tor relays at once, for
good or ill.

Have you considered these issues at all?

D

On 20/02/17 00:44, cont...@charlieluna.com wrote:

I'm highly interested in us creating a large server farm for Tor
services. The only question is how to get the coaxial cable ran from
the server facility to each subscriber. The power requirements could
be handled by solar and wind systems and any water needs can be
created by means of water collection systems and solar heat collectors
for hot water. I think it's totally feasible. What do you guys think?

Also, I'm very hardcore about taking back the internet for the people.
No more of this for-profit stuff where we get throttled and our
freedom of speech is abridged. Internet for the people is a means of
freedom of speech. Let's take it back.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays




--

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:31:41 -0800
From: I <beatthebasta...@inbox.com>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] large server farms
Message-ID