Re: [tor-relays] Relay MIGHTYWANG consensus issues and loss of STABLE flag
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 20:04:11 +0200 Sebastian Hahn wrote: > I operate gabelmoo and your relay seems to be unreachable via IPv6 from here. > Here's a traceroute: Ping and traceroute to that IP don't reach for me either, from anywhere*, but TCP connection to port 443 works. Perhaps you could recheck that too, on your end? > traceroute to 2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef:: > (2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef::), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets > 1 informatik.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000:4140::1) 1.966 ms 2.037 > ms 2.214 ms > 2 constellation.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3341:33) 0.718 ms > 0.770 ms 0.831 ms > 3 yamato.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3033:30) 0.829 ms 1.122 ms > 1.234 ms > 4 * * * > 5 * * * > 6 * * * > 7 ffm-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:6b::1) 19.795 ms 19.786 ms > 19.779 ms > 8 prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1) 20.489 ms > prs-bb2-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:c1::1) 20.931 ms > prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1) 20.509 ms > 9 ldn-bb4-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7b::1) 19.517 ms > ldn-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7a::1) 19.390 ms 19.334 ms > 10 * * * > 11 vaioni-ic326121-ldn-b2.ip.twelve99-cust.net (2001:2000:3080:937::2) > 20.387 ms 19.464 ms 20.446 ms > 12 2a02:29d0:0:1:: (2a02:29d0:0:1::) 39.577 ms 39.414 ms 39.363 ms > 13 2a02:29d0:3:1003::1 (2a02:29d0:3:1003::1) 20.520 ms 20.514 ms * > 14 * * * > 15 * * * > 16 * * * > 17 * * * > 18 * * * > 19 * * * * a terrible firewalling practice, see what confusion it leads to. -- With respect, Roman ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay MIGHTYWANG consensus issues and loss of STABLE flag
Welcome to the club: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/team/-/issues/128 Since Georg opened that (on my behalf) I too have lost the Stable flag. Cheers. On 10/29/2021 9:10 AM, Mighty Wang wrote: Hello fellow operators I have one pretty large relay, MIGHTYWANG which is an IP4/6 guard, dedicated hardware running on a 1Gb line uncontended. It is usually one of the top 5 relays by consensus weight but on the morning of 14th October it lost Guard status on account of losing the stable flag. I checked logs, connectivity and server health - nothing unusual, everything is generally pretty bullet proof in and around the relay and it had been running for well over a year without a reboot - just the very occasional Tor daemon restart following upgrades but no such activity prior to the 14th. So next I checked the consensus and I see that around half of the directory authorities seem to be not assigning the stable flag. See attached screenshot showing current consensus. The peering to each of those relays seems OK from what I can see (IP4 and IP6) so any idea what gives? I've got a MIGHTYWANG sitting here twiddling it's thumbs because have the directory authorities don't want to use it. Bit of a waste. I had similar things happen a few years ago with one of my old relays; again no obvious reason, just seemed to be the a random whim of the directory authorities. I've noticed a couple of other long term relays are in a similar position - is this some time of attack, deliberate action or just Tor magic? Wang -- MIGHTYWANG 9B2BC7EFD661072AFADC533BE8DCF1C19D8C2DCC ___ 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
Re: [tor-relays] Relay MIGHTYWANG consensus issues and loss of STABLE flag
Hi Wang, > On 29. Oct 2021, at 18:10, Mighty Wang wrote: > > I have one pretty large relay, MIGHTYWANG which is an IP4/6 guard, dedicated > hardware running on a 1Gb line uncontended. It is usually one of the top 5 > relays by consensus weight but on the morning of 14th October it lost Guard > status on account of losing the stable flag. > > I checked logs, connectivity and server health - nothing unusual, everything > is generally pretty bullet proof in and around the relay and it had been > running for well over a year without a reboot - just the very occasional Tor > daemon restart following upgrades but no such activity prior to the 14th. > > So next I checked the consensus and I see that around half of the directory > authorities seem to be not assigning the stable flag. See attached screenshot > showing current consensus. > > The peering to each of those relays seems OK from what I can see (IP4 and > IP6) so any idea what gives? > > I've got a MIGHTYWANG sitting here twiddling it's thumbs because have the > directory authorities don't want to use it. Bit of a waste. > > I had similar things happen a few years ago with one of my old relays; again > no obvious reason, just seemed to be the a random whim of the directory > authorities. > > I've noticed a couple of other long term relays are in a similar position - > is this some time of attack, deliberate action or just Tor magic? > > > > Wang I operate gabelmoo and your relay seems to be unreachable via IPv6 from here. Here's a traceroute: traceroute to 2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef:: (2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef::), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 informatik.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000:4140::1) 1.966 ms 2.037 ms 2.214 ms 2 constellation.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3341:33) 0.718 ms 0.770 ms 0.831 ms 3 yamato.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3033:30) 0.829 ms 1.122 ms 1.234 ms 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 ffm-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:6b::1) 19.795 ms 19.786 ms 19.779 ms 8 prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1) 20.489 ms prs-bb2-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:c1::1) 20.931 ms prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1) 20.509 ms 9 ldn-bb4-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7b::1) 19.517 ms ldn-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7a::1) 19.390 ms 19.334 ms 10 * * * 11 vaioni-ic326121-ldn-b2.ip.twelve99-cust.net (2001:2000:3080:937::2) 20.387 ms 19.464 ms 20.446 ms 12 2a02:29d0:0:1:: (2a02:29d0:0:1::) 39.577 ms 39.414 ms 39.363 ms 13 2a02:29d0:3:1003::1 (2a02:29d0:3:1003::1) 20.520 ms 20.514 ms * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * Perhaps this helps analyze the problem? Cheers Sebastian ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
[tor-relays] Relay MIGHTYWANG consensus issues and loss of STABLE flag
Hello fellow operators I have one pretty large relay, MIGHTYWANG which is an IP4/6 guard, dedicated hardware running on a 1Gb line uncontended. It is usually one of the top 5 relays by consensus weight but on the morning of 14th October it lost Guard status on account of losing the stable flag. I checked logs, connectivity and server health - nothing unusual, everything is generally pretty bullet proof in and around the relay and it had been running for well over a year without a reboot - just the very occasional Tor daemon restart following upgrades but no such activity prior to the 14th. So next I checked the consensus and I see that around half of the directory authorities seem to be not assigning the stable flag. See attached screenshot showing current consensus. The peering to each of those relays seems OK from what I can see (IP4 and IP6) so any idea what gives? I've got a MIGHTYWANG sitting here twiddling it's thumbs because have the directory authorities don't want to use it. Bit of a waste. I had similar things happen a few years ago with one of my old relays; again no obvious reason, just seemed to be the a random whim of the directory authorities. I've noticed a couple of other long term relays are in a similar position - is this some time of attack, deliberate action or just Tor magic? Wang -- MIGHTYWANG 9B2BC7EFD661072AFADC533BE8DCF1C19D8C2DCC ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] torproject forum
I'v moved the discussion to tor-talk since it is about more then just tor-relays: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2021-October/045779.html -- https://nusenu.github.io ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Relay operator section in our forum
On 10/28/21 9:39 PM, nusenu wrote: > > > nusenu: >>> [1] https://forum.torproject.net/ >>> [2] https://forum.torproject.net/c/support/relay-operator/17 >> >> thank you for creating the Discourse forum. > > I've to admit I'm a bit surprised the torproject has chosen > the Discourse Saas option instead of running it on a system > where you control what logs are stored and for how long. > https://forum.torproject.net/privacy > > Are there plans to make it available as an onion service? > https://onion.torproject.org/ > Discourse was contacted, and as it looks right now, we are not getting an onion service. https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/tpa/team/-/issues/40183#note_2740700 I looked around a little, but I can't find where there is anything on exactly why it isn't self hosted. -- HackerNCoder ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Tor respority can't be updated from securly on debian
On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:09:04 PM CEST Keifer Bly wrote: > Hi, so I am trying to update tor to the newest version on my debian vps, > only to receive this error: > Here is my sources.list file, > > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster main > deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian buster main > deb http://security.debian.org/ buster/updates main > deb-src http://security.debian.org/ buster/updates main > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-updates main > deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-updates main > > I am wondering what needs to be added here to allow tor to update? Thank > you. You have no archive from the Torproject in the sources list. Or take Debian Backports, that's just a few days after the Torproject on the same stand. The script to bootstrap a debian server to be a set-and-forget tor relay I have recommended you several times. That makes everything in 30 sec. and you only need to configure the torrc. -- ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! Debian GNU/Linux It's free software and it gives you freedom! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
