Re: [tor-relays] "Relay info kit" for Tor exits at universities
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > - Georgia Tech (Dave Dagon) > This is fantastic news, I used to run an exit relay out of my dorm room at Georgia Tech. It was a bit of a pain to get set up initially — ResNET and OIT didn't really understand the concept, but ended up letting me run it. I've been wanting to set something up with the College of Computing or GTRI for a while now, so it's good to see that this is being done. Let me know if you need any help (I'll get in touch with Dave and mention it to him as well). > - We should set up a mailing list for university relay operators to share > experiences and feel solidarity. I'll also encourage them to sign up here. > We might also post a list of university Tor exits somewhere obvious, > so new ones can gain more confidence in the idea. > Both great ideas. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of feedback on these issues except to say that I love the idea, and I'm glad to see that Georgia Tech (which has substantial network resources) will be on board. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/EC2C9934 SamWhited.com s...@samwhited.com 404.492.6008 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Electronic surveillance on major tor exits
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM, mick wrote: > He specifically used the word "traffic". That does not imply shoulder > surfing. I think the original messages point was simply: ``we all know that some people don't use Tor properly." I doubt he is actually sniffing traffic on his relay (or looking over a friend's shoulder). Perhaps not though — I just wouldn't jump to any conclusions. Best, Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/EC2C9934 SamWhited.com s...@samwhited.com 404.492.6008 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/25/2012 12:34 PM, Julian Wissmann wrote: > Please don't forget non profits, like 501(c)3, under which > probably many hackerspaces in the US fall or the german e.V., like > Zwiebelfreunde e.V., who run torservers.net > <http://torservers.net/>. Absolutely! I meant to use LLC's as an example as they are much easier to form than a 501(c)3 exempt organization, but my wording was poor. I intended that to be read, "any company that's not a sole proprietorship." > I disagree again. We're on the verge of cheap,affordable 10GBit > (as in torservers has just gotten an offer for unlimited traffic > 10GBit for $750 with SWIP from a hoster who seems Tor friendly). > This means, that 100mbit is getting cheaper and cheaper, as does > GBit. 100mbit already comes at a price diadvantage compared to > gbit, we don't nead to start on cost-effectiveness of 10mbit, not > to mention that many people in the west could run 10mbit nodes from > home by now. Perhaps you're right; has anyone done any network simulations or run any tests to see what would be better for network latency and/or anonymity (more low-throughput relays, or a few larger relays)? Regardless, I don't think the speed/bandwidth cap (if there is one) should be set too high. In many countries it may be difficult—if not impossible—to run a 10, or even a 1GBit node. As great as lots of 1(0+)GBit nodes would be, we don't want to end up with plenty of nodes in the USA, GB, Germany, etc. and very few elsewhere. Geographic diversity is also extremely important for the project. That being said, if we can get good geographic diversity while only paying for larger nodes it might be more cost-effective. Again, this might need (further?) research. —Sam - -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/EC2C9934 SamWhited.com s...@samwhited.com 404.492.6008 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQEG4zAAoJEPs5vPfsLJk0PKQP/1SCo+pEcJDFWx/cy8riGYiA mFGHiwRUrDRVVzjW/GsjnVT6oWyo0U0RL2/bzN+lh2I7xohgeKT15SFul4E5cjmG qIuRl7zpBHhKckJLwIcksuHgiaFVXmjZxWP1nET4uCYF+yw+4rT8EyXeW+3VnQJ9 nCfsa79cjqFcPo06wy6UOKVvhTja+/rBKBBM13tJmZAbgTUtm6yBCpn919x6YXzM g6rnltUvVdJWLjxj0hzkfL1WS2wXog58M7OA+WEXtW6/0aD+g5Q4hqcQtp/e1Vz+ oheb9KZvyvG9WU96vXwTc6Sc7jCN77MT5+rgJdzS5iPQfIZTFTHGgk6LNV68KkQq m344O+YUhE79/8C8c3oziU5t3JDl64CCOakI6dqKv0PfrSi6qlvnjsg1E60MsDzB 6FzYqAC3h4l3Yjw4lGkbJRRPOwYqPjjz+Z/ux+e9gxo1Bs+d5hx+Ik9iFAU9GZz8 uWfqIAps5UDYNENNrVNkkQUL6847R0EpVOoqNRuoNMdw6h35s+JjJdkK6Bt9eZiF ZgpgOC1PZMmPIb4/P23BVC8hI3lTGKvivX/bLX9AHfEUnxs5tDD7vu6bEU8rPkg4 3Oo2+6aJQXrVANM1xFfQn0PPdACKX39kstDCoEbO4dnQm/VmahbvWj4WGmgm7Uor TdSzx8ckEtdiaq0qr/v6 =CFjY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Open questions we need to decide about: > > 1) What exactly would we pay for? > As you said, reimbursing users for hosting is probably the best idea here, however, we also don't want to get in the situation where users feel that they _must_ be reimbursed to run an exit relay. What happens if the sponsors funding dries up in a year and no one wants to donate bandwidth anymore? Perhaps only registered companies should be sponsored — as much as I hate to limit the scope of the project, I think this (might) prevent abuse to a certain extent. Individuals who wanted to run an exit relay of their own could still do so, they would just have to use some of the money to form an LLC (or whatever their countries equivalent is if the scope of this project extends outside of the US). This gives them a bit more of an incentive to separate their Tor node form their personal server/computing resources (in the form of limited liability), which they should probably be doing anyways. > I think we should aim to constrain ourselves to talking about >=100mbit > exits > I disagree; as others have said, lots of 10mbit relays will do as much for the network as a few 100mbit relays. Most peoples use case is simply checking email, browsing the web, reading news, etc. which don't necessarily need a huge 100mbit relay. > 2) Should we fund existing relays or new ones? > It's probably not wise to distinguish between the two. If you only fund new relays, you may see a lot of old relays shut down (and then restarted as "new relays" to get funding). So you might as well just sponsor both. More thoughts on this in a bit. > - Should we prefer big collectives like torservers, noisetor, CCC, > dfri.se, and riseup (which can get great bulk rates on bandwidth and are > big enough to have relationships with local lawyers and ISPs), or should > we prefer individuals since they maximize our operator diversity? I think > "explore both approaches" is a fine first plan. > "Explore both approaches" sounds good; I think we'll find that operator diversity leads to a healthier (more anonymous) network. Again, I lean towards small guys that will run a few nodes at different data centers, but not Sole proprietorship's. > - For existing relays who pay for hosting… Picking a certain monthly transfer target might solve this; so existing relays that are fast could apply for aid, and it would give slower relays incentive to speed up. The challenge then becomes, where do we set this cutoff? I'm inclined to think it could be kept relatively low and still be very beneficial for the network. > the Tor network must not end up > addicted to external funding. So long as everybody is running an exit > relay because they want to save the world, I think we should be fine. > This is the core of the entire discussion. We might also consider only funding relays in areas where we need the diversity by taking into account… > There's network diversity (AS / upstream network topology), organization > and operator diversity, jurisdictional (country) diversity, funding > diversity, data-center diversity, and more. > …this stuff. > > 7) How do we audit / track the sponsored relays? > > How should we check that your 100mbit relay is really working? What do > we measure to confirm its capacity? To a first approximation I'm fine > assuming that nobody is going to try to cheat (say, by colluding with > an ISP to write legit-looking invoices but then just split the money). > Probably better to monitor this carefully from the get-go. Sponsors like to know where their money is going, and continued funding could hinge on it. > Then I'll send individual emails to exit relay operators pointing them > to it and asking for their feedback > Consider asking some of the faster / more stable non-exit relay operators as well. Many of these folks (myself included) have run an exit relay at one point or another and stopped—or want to run an exit but won't—because of the financial burden, or because of legal ramifications, etc. Some of them might want to run an exit relay, or change their existing nodes to exit relays if they could only get a bit of funding to help cover bandwidth and separate their personal resources / business from their exit node(s) (via a new server, or a separate business entity, etc.) Best, Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/EC2C9934 SamWhited.com s...@samwhited.com 404.492.6008 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
