Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 3 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Ranawrote: > > To recap, we are talking about > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400C > C6 > > Thanks but your explanation does not seem to apply here. The measured BW is > equal to the limit and has been the same rock solid number (153.6 KB/s) for > weeks. Please stop calling it the measured bandwidth. It's confusing. The heading is "Advertised Bandwidth". The components of the Atlas advertised bandwidth are: (View Source or Mouse Over the Advertised Bandwidth figure) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400CC6 Advertised Bandwidth: 153.6 KB/s Bandwidth rate: 153.6 KB/s Bandwidth burst: 179.2 KB/s Observed bandwidth: 173.03 KB/s Look in my previous emails for definitions of these figures, and how the advertised bandwidth is calculated from them. > As you see on the graph, the actual throughput is nowhere near the > limit. The reported bandwidth doesn't need to be near the limit to decrease the measured bandwidth. Any client usage decreases the extra bandwidth available for measurement, and therefore decreases the measurement. > The IP is static and therefore never changed. The relay almost never > restarted and certainly did not restart for weeks before the drop occurred > (uptime is 24 days now). And as you see it never really recovered from the > drop and seems to have stabilized at about 7% of its (as measured and > reported in Atlas) capacity. It seems your relay's sustained capacity might be much less than the bandwidth rate. There are many factors that can limit relay capacity. Look in previous emails on this list for some of the different factors. > What am I missing? Maybe the measurement system works, and your relay just can't sustain high volumes of traffic (or large numbers of connections). 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
To recap, we are talking about https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400C C6 Thanks but your explanation does not seem to apply here. The measured BW is equal to the limit and has been the same rock solid number (153.6 KB/s) for weeks. As you see on the graph, the actual throughput is nowhere near the limit. The IP is static and therefore never changed. The relay almost never restarted and certainly did not restart for weeks before the drop occurred (uptime is 24 days now). And as you see it never really recovered from the drop and seems to have stabilized at about 7% of its (as measured and reported in Atlas) capacity. What am I missing? -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 5:31 AM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 28 Dec 2016, at 02:50, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Speaking of guards, could someone come with a theory pf what happened here? The IP is static, the relay exists for 18 days and has Stable flag since maybe 2 weeks, the measured bandwidth -153 KB/s - exactly equals the bandwidth limit in torrc for 2 weeks now. What could explan the sudden catastrophic drop in bandwidth after linear if not exponential growth? This articledescribes exactly this pattern but the drop occurs when a Guard flag is awarded. In this case, no guard fag. Any ideas? When your relay reaches its bandwidth rate, it has no spare capacity. Therefore, the bandwidth authority measurements (and consensus weight) are lower. Since the consensus weight is lower, clients use the relay less. The relay has spare capacity, and the bandwidth authority measurements (and consensus weight) are higher. This feedback process continues until the relay utilisation and consensus weight stabilise. (Large page) https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2017-01-03-02-00.ht ml#707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400CC6 In this particular case, the changes are large. This might be because: * the bandwidth rate is low, * the connection speed is high compared to the bandwidth rate, * the IP address changes, or * the relay restarts, or * perhaps some other reason. 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 28 Dec 2016, at 02:50, Ranawrote: > > Speaking of guards, could someone come with a theory pf what happened here? > The IP is static, the relay exists for 18 days and has Stable flag since > maybe 2 weeks, the measured bandwidth -153 KB/s - exactly equals the > bandwidth limit in torrc for 2 weeks now. What could explan the sudden > catastrophic drop in bandwidth after linear if not exponential growth? This > articledescribes exactly this pattern but the drop occurs when a Guard flag > is awarded. In this case, no guard fag. Any ideas? When your relay reaches its bandwidth rate, it has no spare capacity. Therefore, the bandwidth authority measurements (and consensus weight) are lower. Since the consensus weight is lower, clients use the relay less. The relay has spare capacity, and the bandwidth authority measurements (and consensus weight) are higher. This feedback process continues until the relay utilisation and consensus weight stabilise. (Large page) https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2017-01-03-02-00.html#707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400CC6 In this particular case, the changes are large. This might be because: * the bandwidth rate is low, * the connection speed is high compared to the bandwidth rate, * the IP address changes, or * the relay restarts, or * perhaps some other reason. 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Speaking of guards, could someone come with a theory pf what happened here <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/707A9A3358E0D8653089AF32A097570A96400CC6> ? The IP is static, the relay exists for 18 days and has Stable flag since maybe 2 weeks, the measured bandwidth -153 KB/s - exactly equals the bandwidth limit in torrc for 2 weeks now. What could explan the sudden catastrophic drop in bandwidth after linear if not exponential growth? This article <https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay> describes exactly this pattern but the drop occurs when a Guard flag is awarded. In this case, no guard fag. Any ideas? From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of balbea16 Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 5:05 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP Hi There I evaluated some relays with newly assigned (red) guard flags. All of them had already the stable flag assigned. And (so far I could see) all of them had (almost) static IP addresses. In my case, this may be the reason why I don't get a guard flag. My ISP changes it every 24 hours. However, I'd be fine with "just" operating a fast middle node. I will keep an eye on this. Mike ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Hi There I evaluated some relays with newly assigned (red) guard flags. All of them had already the stable flag assigned. And (so far I could see) all of them had (almost) static IP addresses. In my case, this may be the reason why I don't get a guard flag. My ISP changes it every 24 hours. However, I'd be fine with "just" operating a fast middle node. I will keep an eye on this. Mike ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Ranawrote: > If the small relays are largely unused (eg if 10% of the relays carry 90% of > the Tor traffic - does anyone have an exact statistics on this?) and if, in > addition, there is no increased anonymity benefit in having a lot of small > relays, then why bother? There's the obvious that if you have a lot of unused relays, and essentially only your traffic happens to traverse three of them, then you're much more easily subject to active observation by the relays themselves, and passive observation by GPA's. Therein one might expect dirauths to restrict node count to network saturation levels only, instead of the 7000 we have today. But even if using three fully saturated relays, you can still be deanoned by as little as one guard and one exit / destination. That works essentially the same for hidden services too. There are often threads on tor-talk about filling anonymous overlay networks with dynamic fill traffic / traffic buckets / packet switching, udp, etc to prevent ease of that happening, in particular since client nodes would be participating too, but it goes nowhere. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Thank you @Gamby for echoing my sentiment. While there can be a good tech reason for considering small relays useless, the small relay operators MUST be properly and openly advised about how useful or useless their relays are. I even have read about someone's suggestion of gamification of such feedback - which I think is a damn good idea , eg give people badges based on how USEFUL their relays are. I heard here an idea that it's good that a lot of people run relays because their joining the party increases the size of the crowd that supports privacy. Well, a global crowd of 7000 is a pathetically small one considering the target, and people should run relays not because this makes them feel good about themselves but because they are convinced that their relays are being USED for a good purpose. If the small relays are largely unused (eg if 10% of the relays carry 90% of the Tor traffic - does anyone have an exact statistics on this?) and if, in addition, there is no increased anonymity benefit in having a lot of small relays, then why bother? -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Gumby Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 6:06 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP I have followed this for some time with interest, because I've run 2 relays from "home" connections for over 2 years - at on point three, all on unused older laptops. I have an Archer C7 which can handle 31k connections (theoretically) and have never had issues. My IP address changes maybe 3 times a year. I am set at 1 mb up/down - largely unused compared to its capacity, but I really don't care as long as it runs. I have had as many as 3700 connections but usually 150 or so. I still do not care - I have felt that this still provides for someone, somewhere. I will continue, without getting upset over unused "horsepower". With that said however - if the authority feels I am pathetically useless (reminds me of the testosterone ego of high school jocks) then what would happen if all the small relays - like me - say piss on it? At what point does this entire Tor freedom concept become the field of rich, unlimited bandwidth mavens? And incidentally, those jocks would never had graduated if not for the "nerds" that tutored them - the little guys provide a hell of a lot more than people realize. Gumby ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
I have followed this for some time with interest, because I've run 2 relays from "home" connections for over 2 years - at on point three, all on unused older laptops. I have an Archer C7 which can handle 31k connections (theoretically) and have never had issues. My IP address changes maybe 3 times a year. I am set at 1 mb up/down - largely unused compared to its capacity, but I really don't care as long as it runs. I have had as many as 3700 connections but usually 150 or so. I still do not care - I have felt that this still provides for someone, somewhere. I will continue, without getting upset over unused "horsepower". With that said however - if the authority feels I am pathetically useless (reminds me of the testosterone ego of high school jocks) then what would happen if all the small relays - like me - say piss on it? At what point does this entire Tor freedom concept become the field of rich, unlimited bandwidth mavens? And incidentally, those jocks would never had graduated if not for the "nerds" that tutored them - the little guys provide a hell of a lot more than people realize. Gumby On 12/22/2016 12:47 PM, Rana wrote: -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of David Serrano Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 7:36 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 2016-12-22 19:24:25 (+0200), Rana wrote: 2. "Residential lines in particular ... hardware caves when too many connections are open in parallel" - this appears to be plain incorrect. [...] ith 1300 simultaneous connections. His statement is right. 1300 connections are not a lot. I used to have a symmetric 20 megabytes/second line and the router provided by my ISP would reboot when reaching around 3600 >connections. Happily, they provided FTTH so I was able to put a linux box instead of said router and reach 13k conns. You are a part of a minuscule group of people who have a 160 mpbs symmetric connection to the home, and the first one I run into in my life. I therefore doubt that your example is relevant to the discussion - almost everybody else on the planet does not have this kind of bandwidth to the home, and cannot saturate a $35 Raspberry Pi with his Tor traffic because their bottleneck is ISP bandwidth, not hardware. Which was my point. -- David Serrano PGP: 1BCC1A1F280A01F9 ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
@grarpamp >Please see and contribute to the following... >https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/HardwarePerformanceCompendium The Pi info there is indeed totally out of date. I opened an account on the wiki. However, after 10 (!) tries to pass the totally unnecessary captcha which blocked my access AFTER I logged in, I have given up on trying to upload my data there. >If the source code and network technically permits any given node, it is valid >for discussion. Not only the network and code permit Pi-based relays from residential premises with ANY kind of Internet connection bandwidth, the texts on Tor page encourage people to run relays without telling them that their relays may be unwanted or useless if their connection is not fast enough. I have no firm data on this but my gut feeling is that the use of small residential relays can be optimized and made useful; and if it can't as some knowledgeable people on this forum seem to opine, then this info should be openly available for all and not just for the initiated or for people like me who spend the time to dig into the discussion on this forum for 3 weeks in order to find this out. >I've often suggested that all node selection and testing / ranking / node >trust pki metrics / geoip / etc all be left as subscription style services >and/or configurable parametrics for clients to >choose from or configure >themselves. With some default "Tor Project" set shipped as fine for most >users, in which Tor Project acts as one such supplier of such params. >That leave only malacting nodes and 'net useful' nodes up to dirauths >themselves. With 'useful' being no excuse to not make efforts to scale >networks to the next level. I could not agree more. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Ranawrote: > If there is such a wiki I will be happy to submit my reports, I am not aware > of one. Please see and contribute to the following... https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/HardwarePerformanceCompendium > Also, based on this thread the people who may take action and decisions seem > to be convinced that home relays are of no or very little use to Tor. For > this reason, whether they are right or not, I am not sure we should bother > beyond the unstructured discussion in this thread. If the source code and network technically permits any given node, it is valid for discussion. I've often suggested that all node selection and testing / ranking / node trust pki metrics / geoip / etc all be left as subscription style services and/or configurable parametrics for clients to choose from or configure themselves. With some default "Tor Project" set shipped as fine for most users, in which Tor Project acts as one such supplier of such params. That leave only malacting nodes and 'net useful' nodes up to dirauths themselves. With 'useful' being no excuse to not make efforts to scale networks to the next level. ie: Networks like Phantom just distribute a DHT list of nodes, so conceivably if and how you use them is up to you. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
If there is such a wiki I will be happy to submit my reports, I am not aware of one. Also, based on this thread the people who may take action and decisions seem to be convinced that home relays are of no or very little use to Tor. For this reason, whether they are right or not, I am not sure we should bother beyond the unstructured discussion in this thread. -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of grarpamp Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 8:37 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > A 20 mbps Pi relay has been reported here, still under-utilized. All these reports of this or that made in piles of random email ... serves no one past the typical few day participant convos. So please people... submit all your hardware speed reports to the wiki in some organized tabular and broken out for descriptive commentary doco fashion so others can refer to it as a useful resource. ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Ranawrote: > A 20 mbps Pi relay has been reported here, still under-utilized. All these reports of this or that made in piles of random email ... serves no one past the typical few day participant convos. So please people... submit all your hardware speed reports to the wiki in some organized tabular and broken out for descriptive commentary doco fashion so others can refer to it as a useful resource. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
-Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of David Serrano Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 7:36 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 2016-12-22 19:24:25 (+0200), Rana wrote: >> >> 2. "Residential lines in particular ... hardware caves when too many >> connections are open in parallel" - this appears to be plain >> incorrect. [...] ith 1300 simultaneous connections. >His statement is right. 1300 connections are not a lot. I used to have a symmetric 20 megabytes/second line and the router provided by my ISP would reboot when reaching around 3600 >connections. Happily, they provided FTTH so I was able to put a linux box instead of said router and reach 13k conns. You are a part of a minuscule group of people who have a 160 mpbs symmetric connection to the home, and the first one I run into in my life. I therefore doubt that your example is relevant to the discussion - almost everybody else on the planet does not have this kind of bandwidth to the home, and cannot saturate a $35 Raspberry Pi with his Tor traffic because their bottleneck is ISP bandwidth, not hardware. Which was my point. -- David Serrano PGP: 1BCC1A1F280A01F9 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 2016-12-22 19:24:25 (+0200), Rana wrote: > > 2. "Residential lines in particular ... hardware caves when too many > connections are open in parallel" - this appears to be plain incorrect. [...] > ith 1300 simultaneous connections. His statement is right. 1300 connections are not a lot. I used to have a symmetric 20 megabytes/second line and the router provided by my ISP would reboot when reaching around 3600 connections. Happily, they provided FTTH so I was able to put a linux box instead of said router and reach 13k conns. -- David Serrano PGP: 1BCC1A1F280A01F9 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
@Sebastian, Thank you for the detailed presentation of your arguments against the use of residential relays. While many (probably most) of the points you made are convincing and, coming from a DirAuth operator, difficult for me to contest, I would like to refer to those of them that seem to be less firm to me (I am not referring to the "political support" argument here, my points are purely technical): 1. If DirAuths are no longer the bottleneck , and the bottleneck shifted to the distribution of information about new relays, maybe it is the next problem that should be looked at and resolved by the Tor developers. 2. "Residential lines in particular ... hardware caves when too many connections are open in parallel" - this appears to be plain incorrect. A Pi based relay was recently reported here by @balbea that has 20%/60% CPU/memory utilization, respectively, 21 mbps (measured) peak/900 kbps (measured) average utilization by Tor, with 1300 simultaneous connections. The speed @balbea could squeeze out of his residential ISP is pretty amazing and, despite my call on this forum for further examples, unbeated and, to the best of my knowledge, all but unprecedented. And that's at 60% utilization of the bottleneck resource - the memory and the obvious under-utilization by Tor. If anybody's residential relay "caves" he should get a $35 Raspberry Pi and - yay - no more caving hardware. 3. "the connection (which most often is asymmetric, with less upload capacity than down) were any near saturated using the internet would become a horribly slow and unpleasant experience" - I see no problem whatsoever to engineer the use of bandwidth to 50% or 40% of the peak down BW available to the relay, so that this problem will never happen. After all, every Tor instance does a bandwidth self-test and knows what's its peak down capacity. So this appears to be a non-issue (or maybe an issue that was "neglected by design"). So again, many of your arguments are convincing but there appears to be room for re-engineering the parts of Tor that deal with small relays, to get a greater benefit from them. Moreover, there seems to be a disconnect between what I read, including on official Tor site, and the true state of affairs with small relays as presented by you. You are obviously a knowledgeable guy, and a member of the team that actually runs Tor and makes decisions. This makes me take your statement that running a small bridge is actually harmful, very seriously. Therefore, based what you say, my logical conclusion is as follows: the best thing for Tor would be as many people as possible running exits; but since this is beyond the risk most people are willing to take, the next best thing is running a BIG and stable guard or a BIG and stable bridge. The lowest priority is a bandwidth-wise small (even if stable) residential relay or a small bridge, to the extent that these (the small ones) are not really needed and are actually likely to do damage by overloading the Tor descriptor distribution mechanism or screwing up the way people use bridges, respectively. Which makes me wonder - why aren't there clear guidelines on Tor site about this? I have read there (I do not remember on which page) the following recommendation (or rather, a call for action with an exclamation mark): "If you cannot be an exit, be a relay. If you cannot be a relay, be a bridge!" This is obviously addressed to people who do not have intimate knowledge of Tor and may be just about to make a decision to run a node. Nobody tells them that they should not run a bridge or a relay if they are on residential premises, let alone that this could actually do more damage than good. Rana ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Hi there, I am one of the directory authority operators, so while I don't claim to know what the collective community wants, I am one of the people who are asked to make these decisions. > On 22 Dec 2016, at 10:25, Ranawrote: > > So my question to the community is as follows: does the Tor community want > these small, cheap relays scattered in large quantity around the world, or > not? Executive Summary: On balance, the very small relays do not contribute enough resources compared to the associated costs to be worthwhile. Details below. > I realize there could be pros and contras. Among the contras there could be > (for example) many small relays overloading the dirauths. I would like to > hear more about the contras. The dirauths are indeed a bottleneck in the Tor relay ecosystem, as they have to reguarly contact each relay, measure its bandwidth, check for malicious behaviour etc. But the dirauths are doing fine. The load my dirauth receives is negligible compared to what it could handle. There's a much bigger contributing factor here, however: The information about all relays must be made available to all clients, in a somewhat synchronized fashion. Tor has recently improved its design in this regard massively with the introduction of microdescriptors, and since then it's become somewhat more tolerable to have many small relays. In the past, we allowed relays in the network that were a net drain on available bandwidth, because just distributing their key material used up more bandwidth than they provided in total. Residental lines in particular are typically very bad choices for relays, because they are much more prone to fluctuations in available bandwidth, the hardware caves when too many connections are open in parallel, and if the connection (which most often is asymmetric, with less upload capacity than down) were any near saturated using the internet would become a horribly slow and unpleasant experience. This last point is also the reason why any time you build any kind of network, you overprovision like crazy. The de-cix (largest internet exchange currently in existence) has a peak traffic that exceeds the average by a factor of roughly 1.75. The connected capacity is larger by a factor of 3.5. This is just so that you don't experience service degradation, and it's very common in computer networking. In the past, Tor was massively overloaded and very slow to use, which was a very real obstacle to getting it used, even in places that heavily censor or surveill internet usage. I have a relay on a symmetric 1gbit/s connection, yet the average traffic I push with that relay is just 16MB/s per direction. It is a non-exit relay, if it were used to exit I suspect it would maybe double or quadruple that utilization, but probably get noewhere near line capacity. If more people wanted to make use of it they could, but currently they don't - that's OK, there's no obligation for the Tor network to fill my relay with traffic that it shouldn't get. It is not just the small relays that don't get as much traffic as they could handle. > Among the pros there could be increased security and anonymity, as it would > take adversaries a bigger effort to infiltrate the network by establishing > rogue relays. Also could be invaluable as bridges to help people under > repressive regimes overcome censorship. Tor is gradually getting killed there. To me, the biggest pro is that the number of relay operators, of people who care enough to support the Tor network, is great politically. It's awesome that so many people want to help by providing some of the bandwidth they pay for. It's amazing that Exit operators make their connections endpoints of a public network. Robustness of the network is a comparatively much smaller factor. Needing to re-distribute information about changed IP adresses is a major hurdle towards bridge adoption. We've actually found that large bridges runnning one of the obfuscation protocols have massively higher chances of being useful than small and unreliable bridges, which is why Isis, the bridge db and bridge authority operator, has asked us not to recommend people run bridges on their small residental connections. I want to dispute the claim that unreliable relays (those either too slow or changing their IP too often to be used as Guards) contribute much anonymity-wise. The biggest protection you get is from your guard, and if you need to roll the dice more often (to pick a new guard more often), the chance that you pick one that is controlled by an adversary of yours increases. > My general impression is that the current DirAuth and bwauths policies are > stuck at some old paradigm where small bandwidth relays are dismissed without > good reason, and tons of bandwidth gains and especially diversity and > anonymity benefits are foregone The reasons I have presented above are good enough for me, personally. It seems I am not alone in this
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
pussy 2016年12月22日 17:59,"Rana"写道: > @Andreas > ... > >> I realize there could be pros and contras. Among the contras there > could be (for example) many small relays overloading the dirauths. I would > like to hear more about the contras. > >A Pi running at its line speed isn't exactly a small relay. > > Of course it isn't. A 20 mbps Pi relay has been reported here, still > under-utilized. > > ... > > Additional info about my experiment: I have just fired up an additional > relay on Pi Zero. That's a fucking $9 Tor relay, including flash card and > case. Looks like an oversized USB stick and plugs directly into a USB port > of a computer. No need even for power supply. > > >Why wouldn't you run the relay directly on the connection/powering > computer? > > As I said, it is an experiment to see if this is working at all and what's > the performance. Also, it was easy - I could use my PC to ssh into the Pi > via the USB port, and am running a relay through the same port, so no > tinkering with hardware. Eventually the Tor relay stick could be plugged > directly into a USB port of a home router, I believe that there are some > that have such ports. > > >Also, is the external USB network interface included in the pricing > calculation? > > What external USB network interface? Pi Zero has a micro USB connector. > All that is needed is a standard USB cable, not even OTG one, I fished an > old one from my junkbox. If you want you can add a whopping $1 to the cost > :) > > If you mean microUSB-to-Ethernet adaptor, that's $1.96 on eBay: > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/1pc-Micro-USB-2-0-to-Ethernet-10- > 100-RJ45-Network-LAN-Adapter-Card-uk-/262593720059?hash= > item3d23ce2efb:g:jHwAAOSwU-pXvqrT > > ___ > 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
@Andreas ... >> I realize there could be pros and contras. Among the contras there could be >> (for example) many small relays overloading the dirauths. I would like to >> hear more about the contras. >A Pi running at its line speed isn't exactly a small relay. Of course it isn't. A 20 mbps Pi relay has been reported here, still under-utilized. ... > Additional info about my experiment: I have just fired up an additional relay > on Pi Zero. That's a fucking $9 Tor relay, including flash card and case. > Looks like an oversized USB stick and plugs directly into a USB port of a > computer. No need even for power supply. >Why wouldn't you run the relay directly on the connection/powering computer? As I said, it is an experiment to see if this is working at all and what's the performance. Also, it was easy - I could use my PC to ssh into the Pi via the USB port, and am running a relay through the same port, so no tinkering with hardware. Eventually the Tor relay stick could be plugged directly into a USB port of a home router, I believe that there are some that have such ports. >Also, is the external USB network interface included in the pricing >calculation? What external USB network interface? Pi Zero has a micro USB connector. All that is needed is a standard USB cable, not even OTG one, I fished an old one from my junkbox. If you want you can add a whopping $1 to the cost :) If you mean microUSB-to-Ethernet adaptor, that's $1.96 on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1pc-Micro-USB-2-0-to-Ethernet-10-100-RJ45-Network-LAN-Adapter-Card-uk-/262593720059?hash=item3d23ce2efb:g:jHwAAOSwU-pXvqrT ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:25:11 +, Rana wrote: ... > I realize there could be pros and contras. Among the contras there could be > (for example) many small relays overloading the dirauths. I would like to > hear more about the contras. A Pi running at its line speed isn't exactly a small relay. ... > Additional info about my experiment: I have just fired up an additional relay > on Pi Zero. That's a fucking $9 Tor relay, including flash card and case. > Looks like an oversized USB stick and plugs directly into a USB port of a > computer. No need even for power supply. Why wouldn't you run the relay directly on the connection/powering computer? Also, is the external USB network interface included in the pricing calculation? - Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus TorvaldsDate: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
@Patrice: Yes both relays started with brand new identities and the one that is now clinically dead (nickname ZG0) has been wiped out and restarted with a new fingerprint AND a new IP address as I have a dynamic one and I rebooted my router to get a new one). Did not help, so obviously this has everything to do with the network and how dirauths/bwauths test the connection and vote, and absolutely nothing to do with the identity of the relay See my previous messages to confirm that this has absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the Pi, which are a gross overkill for the use of (nickname) GG2 that the dirauths and bwauths allow. -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:57 AM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: [tor-relays] @Rana - with reference to: Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic Hi, I`ve read your post and questions, also about your 2 Raspberry PIs with the same setting but different locations. I thought about it and my question is: Did these to PIs got a new fresh identity on day zero? If not, it`s worth a try, probably. Kill the old identities and let them by. My fundamental idea is (and that`s why I am writing this): Does my behaviour with the relay (restarting, upgrading, not be onlinening) effect the measurement and therefore the throughput of my relay? Cheers, Patrice ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 07.12.2016 01:36, Duncan Guthrie wrote: > if some flaw was exploited in the various nasty proprietary bits that > make up the Pi, much of the network might be compromised - due to large > similarities across the different models, this would affect considerable > numbers of devices. So using many different computer models with a large > variety of operating systems is ideal for the network as a whole. Yes, there proprietary parts in the firmware, but also this firmware is free and open source. And there are a lot of people who keep care on it. It's especially very easy to rewrite the boot partition. Regards, ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
:-) Does anyone needs a P4 with 300 Watts power supply. In idle mode it's only 100 ... On 07.12.2016 06:32, Rana wrote: > I can just imagine someone panting while dragging a sub-$35 old desktop > computer up the stairs after physically searching for it in a nearby > junkyard. A considerable level of destitution and a commendable commitment to > the cause of Tor would be required. > > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of Roman Mamedov > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 7:08 AM > To: Duncan Guthrie > Cc: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 00:36:15 + > Duncan Guthrie <dguth...@posteo.net> wrote: > >> My original figure may have been... somewhat off. With different >> models they may have updated the network hardware. > > They did not. All models with Ethernet use the same SMSC LAN9514 chip. > >> A more general point is that old desktop computers still offer better >> performance than a Raspberry Pi. You can easily get one for >> considerably less than the cost of a Pi > > And pay more than the cost of a Pi in electricity. > > -- > With respect, > Roman > ___ > 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
You're seriously going to play the "be polite" card after this entire thread happened? I give up. Fuck this, unsubscribed. If you need me, I'll be hiding in my cold dark corner. On Dec 7, 2016 10:02 AM, "Ralph Seichter"wrote: On 07.12.16 15:44, Tristan wrote: > Stop it, both of you. This is not the place for a flame war. If this > were a forum, the topic would be locked. It is not a forum, it is not a flame war, and you'd do well to be a lot more polite before you try to take the moral high ground and presume to tell other people what to do. -Ralph ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 07.12.16 15:44, Tristan wrote: > Stop it, both of you. This is not the place for a flame war. If this > were a forum, the topic would be locked. It is not a forum, it is not a flame war, and you'd do well to be a lot more polite before you try to take the moral high ground and presume to tell other people what to do. -Ralph ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Stop it, both of you. This is not the place for a flame war. If this were a forum, the topic would be locked. Can we just have a normal conversation and get back to what this mailing list is actually used for? On Dec 7, 2016 5:29 AM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: There's an alternative interpretation but mentioning in reply to your message would be... rude :-) -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 12:59 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 07.12.2016 10:56, Rana wrote: > Calling "rude" people who, to make a point, use a bit of obvious and > harmless humor, is rude. Your getting on other people's nerves must *obviously* be the fault of other people. Welcome to Trump World. :-) -Ralph ___ 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
There's an alternative interpretation but mentioning in reply to your message would be... rude :-) -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 12:59 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 07.12.2016 10:56, Rana wrote: > Calling "rude" people who, to make a point, use a bit of obvious and > harmless humor, is rude. Your getting on other people's nerves must *obviously* be the fault of other people. Welcome to Trump World. :-) -Ralph ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 07.12.2016 10:56, Rana wrote: > Calling "rude" people who, to make a point, use a bit of obvious and > harmless humor, is rude. Your getting on other people's nerves must *obviously* be the fault of other people. Welcome to Trump World. :-) -Ralph ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Calling "rude" people who, to make a point, use a bit of obvious and harmless humor, is rude. -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Guthrie Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:41 AM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 07/12/16 05:32, Rana wrote: > I can just imagine someone panting while dragging a sub-$35 old desktop > computer up the stairs after physically searching for it in a nearby > junkyard. A considerable level of destitution and a commendable commitment to > the cause of Tor would be required. This is hardly the case. Computers are so widespread that an old desktop system with even twice the power of the Pi can be had for buttons. There is no need to be rude about the suggestions that people on this list make. Duncan ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 07/12/16 05:32, Rana wrote: I can just imagine someone panting while dragging a sub-$35 old desktop computer up the stairs after physically searching for it in a nearby junkyard. A considerable level of destitution and a commendable commitment to the cause of Tor would be required. This is hardly the case. Computers are so widespread that an old desktop system with even twice the power of the Pi can be had for buttons. There is no need to be rude about the suggestions that people on this list make. Duncan ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
I can just imagine someone panting while dragging a sub-$35 old desktop computer up the stairs after physically searching for it in a nearby junkyard. A considerable level of destitution and a commendable commitment to the cause of Tor would be required. -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Roman Mamedov Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 7:08 AM To: Duncan Guthrie Cc: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 00:36:15 + Duncan Guthrie <dguth...@posteo.net> wrote: > My original figure may have been... somewhat off. With different > models they may have updated the network hardware. They did not. All models with Ethernet use the same SMSC LAN9514 chip. > A more general point is that old desktop computers still offer better > performance than a Raspberry Pi. You can easily get one for > considerably less than the cost of a Pi And pay more than the cost of a Pi in electricity. -- With respect, Roman ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 00:36:15 + Duncan Guthriewrote: > My original figure may have been... somewhat off. With different models > they may have updated the network hardware. They did not. All models with Ethernet use the same SMSC LAN9514 chip. > A more general point is that old desktop computers still offer better > performance than a Raspberry Pi. You can easily get one for considerably > less than the cost of a Pi And pay more than the cost of a Pi in electricity. -- 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 06/12/16 21:10, SuperSluether wrote: I don't know the actual numbers for the Raspberry Pi 1, I was just quoting from Duncan: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-December/011182.html I was told this figure by a friend who tried networking "stuff" on a Pi. From personal experience also, I have found they are just a bit rubbish, other than for using a probe for OONI, and for a short time using it to try out NetBSD and various other operating systems. My original figure may have been... somewhat off. With different models they may have updated the network hardware. Certainly on the new ones they are better, but there are deeper flaws with the Raspberry Pi's hardware, e.g. the omnipotent GPU blob and various other proprietary parts that make supporting it non-trivial compared to say, the BeagleBone Black. A more general point is that old desktop computers still offer better performance than a Raspberry Pi. You can easily get one for considerably less than the cost of a Pi, and there are also issues of network diversity with the Raspberry Pi - if some flaw was exploited in the various nasty proprietary bits that make up the Pi, much of the network might be compromised - due to large similarities across the different models, this would affect considerable numbers of devices. So using many different computer models with a large variety of operating systems is ideal for the network as a whole. Duncan ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:00:20 +0100 diffusaewrote: > Well, I can read and also now the translation from Bits to Bytes. > But I am not sure about your value of the maximum network capacity. > > That's the iperf3 measurement of a Raspberry Pi 1 Model B+: > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.6 MBytes 8.36 MBytes/sec 141 > sender > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.1 MBytes 8.31 MBytes/sec > receiver It's no problem to push close to 100 Mbit on any Raspberry Pi with just plain iperf. [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 111 MBytes 93.1 Mbits/sec Tor is entirely another story though, with all its encryption/decryption and the need to keep track of a few thousands of connections at the same time. I suppose the "1 MB/sec" figure mentioned was about Tor specifically. -- 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Ahh, ok. It looks like, that should be a bit more that 1 MB/s. Regards, On 06.12.2016 22:10, SuperSluether wrote: > I don't know the actual numbers for the Raspberry Pi 1, I was just > quoting from Duncan: > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-December/011182.html > > > On 12/06/2016 03:00 PM, diffusae wrote: >> Well, I can read and also now the translation from Bits to Bytes. >> But I am not sure about your value of the maximum network capacity. >> >> That's the iperf3 measurement of a Raspberry Pi 1 Model B+: >> >> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr >> [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.6 MBytes 8.36 MBytes/sec 141 >> sender >> [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.1 MBytes 8.31 MBytes/sec >> receiver >> >> Also arm shows me an average of 9 MB/s. >> >> Maybe they have change the USB LAN chip? >> >> Regards, >> >> On 06.12.2016 19:20, Tristan wrote: >>> Again, bits or bytes. I can't believe I'm repeating myself, don't you >>> people read? >>> >>> The ORIGINAL (version 1) Raspberry Pi had a max of 1 MegaBYTE. >>> >>> 1 MegaBYTE = 8 megaBITS >>> >>> Obviously other factors limit performance, but looking at just the >>> maximum network capacity of a Raspberry Pi 1, it could handle 8Mbit/s. >>> >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2016 11:16 AM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:ranaventu...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org >>> <mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org>] On Behalf Of >>> pa011 >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:24 AM >>> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >>> <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> >>> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with >>> dynamic IP >>> >>> >>> > I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed >>> by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s >>> bandwidth utilization >>> > >>> >>> let me tell: >>> >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B >>> >>> >>> <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B> >>> >>> >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB >>> >>> >>> <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB> >>> >>> >>> are sharing the same dynamic IP on a Rasp2 -cut every 24 hours >>> >>> day rx | tx |total| >>> avg. rate >>> >>> +-+-+--- >>> 05.12.201627,20 GiB | 28,39 GiB | 55,59 GiB |5,40 >>> Mbit/s >>> >>> >>> that is slight above 1 Mbit/s :-) >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> Wow nice bandwidth you are pushing through Paul! You mean two Raspi >>> 2's sharing an Internet connection, each relaying 27 Gbytes per day >>> at 5.4 Mbit/s on the average?? Total 10.8 Mbit/s?? Or 2.7 Mbit/s >>> each? >>> >>> Definitely refutes the previously claimed 1 Mbit/s Tor limit on >>> Raspi, and means that Raspi has nothing to do with the ridiculously >>> low utilization of my relay, just as I thought. As a matter of fact >>> this means that whoever is NOT running a relay on a Raspi (or two, >>> or four of them) is wasting money, unless he has a computer lying >>> about with nothing better to do. >>> >>> Also, what's the max memory and CPU utilization on your Raspi (I >>> have read somewhere that Tor is only capable of utilizing 2 of >>> the 4 >>> CPU cores), and what kind of Internet connection do you have? >>> >>> BTW the $35 Raspi 3 has 33% more CPU power than your Raspi 2 and >>> the same amount of memory. >>> >>> Rana >>> >>> ___ >>> tor-relays mailing list >>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >>> <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> >>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >>> <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 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
I don't know the actual numbers for the Raspberry Pi 1, I was just quoting from Duncan: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-December/011182.html On 12/06/2016 03:00 PM, diffusae wrote: Well, I can read and also now the translation from Bits to Bytes. But I am not sure about your value of the maximum network capacity. That's the iperf3 measurement of a Raspberry Pi 1 Model B+: [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.6 MBytes 8.36 MBytes/sec 141 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.1 MBytes 8.31 MBytes/sec receiver Also arm shows me an average of 9 MB/s. Maybe they have change the USB LAN chip? Regards, On 06.12.2016 19:20, Tristan wrote: Again, bits or bytes. I can't believe I'm repeating myself, don't you people read? The ORIGINAL (version 1) Raspberry Pi had a max of 1 MegaBYTE. 1 MegaBYTE = 8 megaBITS Obviously other factors limit performance, but looking at just the maximum network capacity of a Raspberry Pi 1, it could handle 8Mbit/s. On Dec 6, 2016 11:16 AM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com <mailto:ranaventu...@gmail.com>> wrote: -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org>] On Behalf Of pa011 Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:24 AM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization > let me tell: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB> are sharing the same dynamic IP on a Rasp2 -cut every 24 hours day rx | tx |total| avg. rate +-+-+--- 05.12.201627,20 GiB | 28,39 GiB | 55,59 GiB |5,40 Mbit/s that is slight above 1 Mbit/s :-) Best regards Paul Wow nice bandwidth you are pushing through Paul! You mean two Raspi 2's sharing an Internet connection, each relaying 27 Gbytes per day at 5.4 Mbit/s on the average?? Total 10.8 Mbit/s?? Or 2.7 Mbit/s each? Definitely refutes the previously claimed 1 Mbit/s Tor limit on Raspi, and means that Raspi has nothing to do with the ridiculously low utilization of my relay, just as I thought. As a matter of fact this means that whoever is NOT running a relay on a Raspi (or two, or four of them) is wasting money, unless he has a computer lying about with nothing better to do. Also, what's the max memory and CPU utilization on your Raspi (I have read somewhere that Tor is only capable of utilizing 2 of the 4 CPU cores), and what kind of Internet connection do you have? BTW the $35 Raspi 3 has 33% more CPU power than your Raspi 2 and the same amount of memory. Rana ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays <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 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Well, I can read and also now the translation from Bits to Bytes. But I am not sure about your value of the maximum network capacity. That's the iperf3 measurement of a Raspberry Pi 1 Model B+: [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.6 MBytes 8.36 MBytes/sec 141 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 83.1 MBytes 8.31 MBytes/sec receiver Also arm shows me an average of 9 MB/s. Maybe they have change the USB LAN chip? Regards, On 06.12.2016 19:20, Tristan wrote: > Again, bits or bytes. I can't believe I'm repeating myself, don't you > people read? > > The ORIGINAL (version 1) Raspberry Pi had a max of 1 MegaBYTE. > > 1 MegaBYTE = 8 megaBITS > > Obviously other factors limit performance, but looking at just the > maximum network capacity of a Raspberry Pi 1, it could handle 8Mbit/s. > > > On Dec 6, 2016 11:16 AM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com > <mailto:ranaventu...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org > <mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org>] On Behalf Of pa011 > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:24 AM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with > dynamic IP > > > > I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed > by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s > bandwidth utilization > > > > let me tell: > > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B > > <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B> > > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB > > <https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB> > > are sharing the same dynamic IP on a Rasp2 -cut every 24 hours > > day rx | tx |total| avg. rate > > +-+-+--- > 05.12.201627,20 GiB | 28,39 GiB | 55,59 GiB |5,40 > Mbit/s > > > that is slight above 1 Mbit/s :-) > > > Best regards > > Paul > > > Wow nice bandwidth you are pushing through Paul! You mean two Raspi > 2's sharing an Internet connection, each relaying 27 Gbytes per day > at 5.4 Mbit/s on the average?? Total 10.8 Mbit/s?? Or 2.7 Mbit/s each? > > Definitely refutes the previously claimed 1 Mbit/s Tor limit on > Raspi, and means that Raspi has nothing to do with the ridiculously > low utilization of my relay, just as I thought. As a matter of fact > this means that whoever is NOT running a relay on a Raspi (or two, > or four of them) is wasting money, unless he has a computer lying > about with nothing better to do. > > Also, what's the max memory and CPU utilization on your Raspi (I > have read somewhere that Tor is only capable of utilizing 2 of the 4 > CPU cores), and what kind of Internet connection do you have? > > BTW the $35 Raspi 3 has 33% more CPU power than your Raspi 2 and > the same amount of memory. > > Rana > > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > <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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Again, bits or bytes. I can't believe I'm repeating myself, don't you people read? The ORIGINAL (version 1) Raspberry Pi had a max of 1 MegaBYTE. 1 MegaBYTE = 8 megaBITS Obviously other factors limit performance, but looking at just the maximum network capacity of a Raspberry Pi 1, it could handle 8Mbit/s. On Dec 6, 2016 11:16 AM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of pa011 Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:24 AM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization > let me tell: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD2615071 0AAA80D58B https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD34 8109FA17FB are sharing the same dynamic IP on a Rasp2 -cut every 24 hours day rx | tx |total| avg. rate +-+-+--- 05.12.201627,20 GiB | 28,39 GiB | 55,59 GiB |5,40 Mbit/s that is slight above 1 Mbit/s :-) Best regards Paul Wow nice bandwidth you are pushing through Paul! You mean two Raspi 2's sharing an Internet connection, each relaying 27 Gbytes per day at 5.4 Mbit/s on the average?? Total 10.8 Mbit/s?? Or 2.7 Mbit/s each? Definitely refutes the previously claimed 1 Mbit/s Tor limit on Raspi, and means that Raspi has nothing to do with the ridiculously low utilization of my relay, just as I thought. As a matter of fact this means that whoever is NOT running a relay on a Raspi (or two, or four of them) is wasting money, unless he has a computer lying about with nothing better to do. Also, what's the max memory and CPU utilization on your Raspi (I have read somewhere that Tor is only capable of utilizing 2 of the 4 CPU cores), and what kind of Internet connection do you have? BTW the $35 Raspi 3 has 33% more CPU power than your Raspi 2 and the same amount of memory. Rana ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths > (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization > let me tell: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/AA44C4BE3C90DCAAC09E5CD26150710AAA80D58B https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CA9A5D5C4688F04EEC1AF810B0FD348109FA17FB are sharing the same dynamic IP on a Rasp2 -cut every 24 hours day rx | tx |total| avg. rate +-+-+--- 05.12.201627,20 GiB | 28,39 GiB | 55,59 GiB |5,40 Mbit/s that is slight above 1 Mbit/s :-) Best regards Paul ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Hi all Just to add some perspective... I'm running a relay on dynamic ip. My ISP will usually not change my IP assignment as long as it's in use. The platform in use is not Rasberry Pi, but Odroid C2. Also an ARM, but a bit more powerful one. Kind regards On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 16:36 Ranawrote: > > -Original Message- > >From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On > Behalf Of Duncan Guthrie > > > >Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) > can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by > the equivalent of a piece of string! >They're suitable for a small mail or > web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large > application. > > > >Duncan > > I am pretty sure your info is out of date. The $35 Raspi3 has four 1.2 GHz > cores and 1GB RAM. On my Raspi (that admittedly does not see much traffic) > CPU utilization hovers somewhere around 1% and total memory utilization by > Tor and the rest of Linux together is 11%. Which is irrelevant since Tor > network will not let it even near 1 mbit/s because - I believe - of its > dynamic IP > > I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by > DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth > utilization > > Rana > > ___ > 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
-Original Message- >From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of >Duncan Guthrie > >Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) can >only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by the >equivalent of a piece of string! >They're suitable for a small mail or web >server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large >application. > >Duncan I am pretty sure your info is out of date. The $35 Raspi3 has four 1.2 GHz cores and 1GB RAM. On my Raspi (that admittedly does not see much traffic) CPU utilization hovers somewhere around 1% and total memory utilization by Tor and the rest of Linux together is 11%. Which is irrelevant since Tor network will not let it even near 1 mbit/s because - I believe - of its dynamic IP I would like to hear about ONE Raspi Tor operator who was allowed by DirAuths (or bwauths or whatever) to come even near 1 mbit/s bandwidth utilization Rana ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> >I think it would be interesting see as to whether allowing bridges to have >dynamic IPs (or even encouraging it) would make them harder to block, and >would make it really easy for people >to contribute to the network in this >small way? Or at least, having a mostly dynamic IP - some devices change their >IP address more frequently than others, if my understanding is correct?> > >Duncan I have heard this theory before and I do not believe it is correct. The dynamic IPs do not change every hour, it usually takes many days or even weeks. So the contribution of IPs being randomly changed to the difficulty of their enumeration by censors would be marginal at best. This COULD be useful if DirAuths would (a) stop punishing relays behind dynamic IPs (b) start campaigning and encouraging people with dynamic IPs and Raspis to run bridges and (c) raise the reputation of the bridges behind dynamic IPs according the novelty of their IP. So bridges with more recently changed IPs would get a higher priority in getting bridge traffic. Combined with intelligent assignment of either obfs4 or meek this would screw the Chinese (and soon the Russian) censors over big time, because they would be chasing an elusive army of Raspis with ever changing IPs... Counter-attacks and counter-counter-measures should be studied though, as adversaries could respond by establishing hundreds of rogue bridges with dynamically changing IPs... Rana ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Again, bits or bytes? If the original Raspberry Pi can push 1MByte, that's 8Mbits, so you could get 4Mbits both ways. On Dec 5, 2016 9:08 AM, "Duncan Guthrie"wrote: > On 04.12.2016 22:35, Tristan wrote: > >> Perhaps this IS in fact normal. I ran a Tor relay on a Raspberry Pi >> for a while. My speed was about 1Mbps max, similar to your 1.5Mbps. I >> saw minimal traffic, and the consensus weight never went above 20. >> >> I'm not running a relay at home anymore because of the slow speeds. >> The configuration guide mentions having at least 250KBytes or 2Mbps, >> and even relays that have 2Mbps probably won't see much traffic since >> there's plenty of faster middle relays. >> >> Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) > can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by > the equivalent of a piece of string! They're suitable for a small mail or > web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large > application. > > Duncan > ___ > 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 04.12.2016 22:35, Tristan wrote: Perhaps this IS in fact normal. I ran a Tor relay on a Raspberry Pi for a while. My speed was about 1Mbps max, similar to your 1.5Mbps. I saw minimal traffic, and the consensus weight never went above 20. I'm not running a relay at home anymore because of the slow speeds. The configuration guide mentions having at least 250KBytes or 2Mbps, and even relays that have 2Mbps probably won't see much traffic since there's plenty of faster middle relays. Keep in mind also that the Raspberry Pi (at least the first one anyway) can only push around 1MB/s tops. The ethernet port is basically held on by the equivalent of a piece of string! They're suitable for a small mail or web server, or some sort of network probe, but not really for any large application. Duncan ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 12/4/2016 7:39 AM, Rana wrote: >> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. > > Attn: Kurt Besig > > Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power > supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and > memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable > 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent > Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on > the same Pi. > > This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to > who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by > the current DirAuth algorithms. > > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who > could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > > > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > Late to the party however,I'm sorry if you interpreted my response as being negative, actually I was offering one possible solution. Welcome to the Community and thanks for running a Tor relay. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 4 Dec 2016 9:58 pm, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: That was exactly my point, thank you Anemoi. This is the case all over the world, not just in Germany. Unfortunately there seems to be a culture of shooting the messenger here, or accusing him of being “aggressive”, “accusatory”, “claiming entitlement” or (my favorite) “lacking programming skills”, in addition to politely phrased suggestions to ditch my relay and pay for a VPS with a fixed IP. The idea of running a volunteer based network for public good is to use every possible resource offered by volunteers, and if DirAuth algorithms need to be adapted for this, such proposal should be taken seriously. I for one am positive that a huge amount of bandwidth that could have been be donated, is lost this way. My understanding is that the DirAuth servers just measure how it would be for users near them. It seems users from several locations using your relay would not get more than 14KB/s so it would be very bad to send more people to your relay as it would make tor unusable for them. The most likely reason would be that your ISP is lacking good connectivity to a large part of internet (this happens to a number of not so small ISPs) but there could be plenty of other reasons. Still if they see your relay slow, it will be slow for many users too, so it is a good thing to not send those users, whoever the fault it is. If this does not make technical sense (which I doubt but I may be wrong), rephrasing the guidelines and officially saying on the Tor page that operators behind dynamic IP are only welcome if they run bridges would be fine – but this isn’t not the case as of now. I hope Tor developers or whoever runs the Tor project are reading this. *From:* tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] *On Behalf Of *ane...@tutanota.de *Sent:* Sunday, December 04, 2016 9:24 PM *To:* tor-relays@lists.torproject.org *Subject:* Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor network can not get enough of. ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
For efficiency upon yourself and others... Don't add the '$'. Use lower case for fingerprints with no spaces (ticketed). Use the same myfamily line including all your relays for all your relays, no point in trying to leave announcing relay out of list. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:51, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wow, I cannot think of a way to check the max number of connections on my > router. I do not believe that Pi has such limitation… Every unix-based machine has such a limitation on each user. It is normally called the maximum number of file descriptors. So yes, it likely affects your router (which you can't change), and your relay (which you can). Check the tor logs for messages about connection limits or file descriptor limits. Look up instructions online for increasing the number of file descriptors per user on your OS and distribution. Tim > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:42 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:15, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> My international connectivity is just fine, connection speed is stable at >> 1.5 mbps and I have a Stable flag. Three authorities voted to give me HSDir >> and Fast. I have provided my Torrc. My consensus weight is stable for >> several days now, at 14. > > Speed tests don't test the things tor needs. > > The 5 tor bandwidth authorities say your relay can't handle much bandwidth. > They say it can sustain around 14KB/s when they check. > > This might mean your Pi or your broadband router is overwhelmed with too many > connections. Do you know what the maximum connection capacity is on your > router and your relay? > Can you increase it to at least 8000? > > Or it could be that your latency to Europe and North America is high. > (Relays in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand have similar issues.) > > Tim > > > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
That was exactly my point, thank you Anemoi. This is the case all over the world, not just in Germany. Unfortunately there seems to be a culture of shooting the messenger here, or accusing him of being “aggressive”, “accusatory”, “claiming entitlement” or (my favorite) “lacking programming skills”, in addition to politely phrased suggestions to ditch my relay and pay for a VPS with a fixed IP. The idea of running a volunteer based network for public good is to use every possible resource offered by volunteers, and if DirAuth algorithms need to be adapted for this, such proposal should be taken seriously. I for one am positive that a huge amount of bandwidth that could have been be donated, is lost this way. If this does not make technical sense (which I doubt but I may be wrong), rephrasing the guidelines and officially saying on the Tor page that operators behind dynamic IP are only welcome if they run bridges would be fine – but this isn’t not the case as of now. I hope Tor developers or whoever runs the Tor project are reading this. From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of ane...@tutanota.de Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 9:24 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor network can not get enough of. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Wow, I cannot think of a way to check the max number of connections on my router. I do not believe that Pi has such limitation... -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:42 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:15, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My international connectivity is just fine, connection speed is stable at 1.5 > mbps and I have a Stable flag. Three authorities voted to give me HSDir and > Fast. I have provided my Torrc. My consensus weight is stable for several > days now, at 14. Speed tests don't test the things tor needs. The 5 tor bandwidth authorities say your relay can't handle much bandwidth. They say it can sustain around 14KB/s when they check. This might mean your Pi or your broadband router is overwhelmed with too many connections. Do you know what the maximum connection capacity is on your router and your relay? Can you increase it to at least 8000? Or it could be that your latency to Europe and North America is high. (Relays in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand have similar issues.) Tim ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
(Please post under others' answers, it makes the discussion read more clearly.) > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:43, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK thanks, this is beginning to sound logical. What you are saying - correct > me if I am wrong - is that since 3 DirAuths gave me fast/hsdir flags while > the other 5 didn't and gave me poor weight, you believe that my connectivity > with the 5 auths is poor and this is the source of my trouble. > > If you are right then there is no problem with my relay, no problem with my > ISP, and there is a problem somewhere between the countries, and this problem > hits specifically my relay. This last piece does not make sense to me but who > knows… Relays in your country might be rare. And it's entirely possible your relay has an issue. Or your broadband router or provider. I'll repeat myself: Speed tests don't test the things tor needs. The 5 tor bandwidth authorities say your relay can't handle much bandwidth. They say it can sustain around 14KB/s when they check. This might mean your Pi or your broadband router is overwhelmed with too many connections. Do you know what the maximum connection capacity is on your router and your relay? Can you increase it to at least 8000? Or it could be that your latency to Europe and North America is high. (Relays in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand have similar issues.) Tim > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:34 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, >> including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this >> normal? > > No, sorry, I explained poorly: > > Your maximum bandwidth is as expected for a middle relay with a similar > config. The relay flags are as expected. > > Your measured bandwidth is not, and indicates an issue with your relay's > connectivity to the bandwidth authorities (5 tor clients/relays spread around > Europe and North America). > > Until you fix this issue, your relay will continue to be measured low, > because it can not sustain the traffic the tor network needs. > > It has nothing to do with your IP address changing. > > Also, it's probably worth mentioning that the Tor network prioritises > *client* bandwidth, latency, and security. There are engineering trade-offs > between these factors. > > Using all available relay bandwidth is not a priority: we will happily use > less bandwidth to provide better latency or better security. > > Tim > >> -Original Message- >> From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On >> Behalf Of teor >> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM >> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with >> dynamic IP >> >> >>> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. >>> >>> Attn: Kurt Besig >>> >>> Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and >>> power supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more >>> horsepower and memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and >>> absolutely stable 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, >>> and my transparent Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access >>> point that lurk on the same Pi. >>> >>> This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to >>> who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain >>> by the current DirAuth algorithms. >>> >>> I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident >>> who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. >> >> Rana, >> >> Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of >> that size should expect. >> >> When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that >> traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. >> >> T >> >> -- >> Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) >> >> teor2345 at gmail dot com >> PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B >> ricochet:ekmygaiu4r
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Nothing logical about it. Thats all you get with shitty connection On Dec 4, 2016 1:43 PM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: OK thanks, this is beginning to sound logical. What you are saying - correct me if I am wrong - is that since 3 DirAuths gave me fast/hsdir flags while the other 5 didn't and gave me poor weight, you believe that my connectivity with the 5 auths is poor and this is the source of my trouble. If you are right then there is no problem with my relay, no problem with my ISP, and there is a problem somewhere between the countries, and this problem hits specifically my relay. This last piece does not make sense to me but who knows... -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:34 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this normal? No, sorry, I explained poorly: Your maximum bandwidth is as expected for a middle relay with a similar config. The relay flags are as expected. Your measured bandwidth is not, and indicates an issue with your relay's connectivity to the bandwidth authorities (5 tor clients/relays spread around Europe and North America). Until you fix this issue, your relay will continue to be measured low, because it can not sustain the traffic the tor network needs. It has nothing to do with your IP address changing. Also, it's probably worth mentioning that the Tor network prioritises *client* bandwidth, latency, and security. There are engineering trade-offs between these factors. Using all available relay bandwidth is not a priority: we will happily use less bandwidth to provide better latency or better security. Tim > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On > Behalf Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with > dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. >> >> Attn: Kurt Besig >> >> Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on the same Pi. >> >> This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by the current DirAuth algorithms. >> >> I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > Rana, > > Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of that size should expect. > > When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. > > 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 > -- > -- > > > > ___ > 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 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 ___ 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
OK thanks, this is beginning to sound logical. What you are saying - correct me if I am wrong - is that since 3 DirAuths gave me fast/hsdir flags while the other 5 didn't and gave me poor weight, you believe that my connectivity with the 5 auths is poor and this is the source of my trouble. If you are right then there is no problem with my relay, no problem with my ISP, and there is a problem somewhere between the countries, and this problem hits specifically my relay. This last piece does not make sense to me but who knows... -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:34 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, > including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this > normal? No, sorry, I explained poorly: Your maximum bandwidth is as expected for a middle relay with a similar config. The relay flags are as expected. Your measured bandwidth is not, and indicates an issue with your relay's connectivity to the bandwidth authorities (5 tor clients/relays spread around Europe and North America). Until you fix this issue, your relay will continue to be measured low, because it can not sustain the traffic the tor network needs. It has nothing to do with your IP address changing. Also, it's probably worth mentioning that the Tor network prioritises *client* bandwidth, latency, and security. There are engineering trade-offs between these factors. Using all available relay bandwidth is not a priority: we will happily use less bandwidth to provide better latency or better security. Tim > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On > Behalf Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with > dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. >> >> Attn: Kurt Besig >> >> Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power >> supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and >> memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable >> 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent >> Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on >> the same Pi. >> >> This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to >> who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by >> the current DirAuth algorithms. >> >> I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident >> who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > Rana, > > Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of > that size should expect. > > When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that > traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. > > 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 > -- > -- > > > > ___ > 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 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 ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:15, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My international connectivity is just fine, connection speed is stable at 1.5 > mbps and I have a Stable flag. Three authorities voted to give me HSDir and > Fast. I have provided my Torrc. My consensus weight is stable for several > days now, at 14. Speed tests don't test the things tor needs. The 5 tor bandwidth authorities say your relay can't handle much bandwidth. They say it can sustain around 14KB/s when they check. This might mean your Pi or your broadband router is overwhelmed with too many connections. Do you know what the maximum connection capacity is on your router and your relay? Can you increase it to at least 8000? Or it could be that your latency to Europe and North America is high. (Relays in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand have similar issues.) Tim > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:07 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 07:44, Netgear Ready <rnd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> Im not sure if I'm entitled to post here, but i think my contribution >> might be useful. I am running two relays on dynamic IPs which change >> about very 24hours, my advertised bandwidth is around 700KB/s, >> Actually used are around 150KB/s which gives about 20% of the >> advertised bandwidth. This ratio is of course little bit lower than >> the static IP relays but by no means as severe as Rana’s. Maybe Rana’s >> configuration might have a problem and we should make a step back and >> look closer on Rana’s configuration to figure out what’s going on. > > Yes, that's an important point. If other operators with dynamic IPs aren't > seeing this issue, perhaps the dynamic IP is not the problem? > > Maybe Rana's Raspberry Pi (or router) can't handle the number of connections > required to run a relay? > > Maybe their ISP has poor international connectivity? > > Maybe their connection can't sustain traffic speeds reliably? > > There are plenty of answers other than a dynamic IP address. > > In fact, the bandwidth measurement code doesn't even store IP addresses, so > the issue can't be there. > > But the reachability code does reset the time when it last reached the relay > every time the address changes, in node_addrs_changed(). > > So there is that factor as well, which would reset the flags. > But it still shouldn't affect the bandwidth measurements. > They should be much higher. > > Tim > >> Kind regards >> >> >> 2016-12-04 20:23 GMT, Sec INT <sec.i...@gmail.com>: >>> Hi Alan >>> >>> If you have more than one relay you add the fingerprint of any other >>> relay you run to your torrc file - if say I ran 10 relays and exits >>> there may be a chance that you would route through just my servers >>> thus you would not be anonymous as I could follow you through from entry to >>> exit. >>> >>> In short if you have more than one relay or exit add the fingerprint >>> of the other relays exits to your torrc file >>> >>> Cheers Snap >>> >>> >>>> On 4 Dec 2016, at 19:58, Alan <tor-re...@clutterbuck.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static >>>> ip's as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip >>>> changes every time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a >>>> fault which is normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >>>> >>>> These are my relays: >>>> >>>> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >>>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 >>>> 960B842B57 >>>> >>>> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >>>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D >>>> 8D948B0887 >>>> >>>> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays >>>> have this set? >>>> >>>>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual >>>>> that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in >>>>> Germany. It's not just a question of frustration of owners of >>>>> dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor >>>>> cannot handle dy
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Perhaps this IS in fact normal. I ran a Tor relay on a Raspberry Pi for a while. My speed was about 1Mbps max, similar to your 1.5Mbps. I saw minimal traffic, and the consensus weight never went above 20. I'm not running a relay at home anymore because of the slow speeds. The configuration guide mentions having at least 250KBytes or 2Mbps, and even relays that have 2Mbps probably won't see much traffic since there's plenty of faster middle relays. On Dec 4, 2016 3:12 PM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: 5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this normal? -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. > > Attn: Kurt Besig > > Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on the same Pi. > > This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by the current DirAuth algorithms. > > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. Rana, Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of that size should expect. When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. 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 ___ 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 08:11, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, > including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this > normal? No, sorry, I explained poorly: Your maximum bandwidth is as expected for a middle relay with a similar config. The relay flags are as expected. Your measured bandwidth is not, and indicates an issue with your relay's connectivity to the bandwidth authorities (5 tor clients/relays spread around Europe and North America). Until you fix this issue, your relay will continue to be measured low, because it can not sustain the traffic the tor network needs. It has nothing to do with your IP address changing. Also, it's probably worth mentioning that the Tor network prioritises *client* bandwidth, latency, and security. There are engineering trade-offs between these factors. Using all available relay bandwidth is not a priority: we will happily use less bandwidth to provide better latency or better security. Tim > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of teor > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > >> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. >> >> Attn: Kurt Besig >> >> Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power >> supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and >> memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable >> 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent >> Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on >> the same Pi. >> >> This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to >> who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by >> the current DirAuth algorithms. >> >> I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident >> who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > Rana, > > Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of > that size should expect. > > When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that > traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. > > 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 > > > > > ___ > 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 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:47:17 - "Alan"wrote: > Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. > I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: > MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 You don't need to only list the other one(s) in each MyFamily, you could simply list all your relays in it. This tends to simplify management of this, and since now the MyFamily line is identical on all hosts, you have a simpler task if you want to automate adding it to the configs. -- 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
The dollar sign is optional. Find ExcludeNodes option description at: https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en > A list of identity fingerprints, country codes, and address patterns of nodes to avoid when building a circuit. Country codes are 2-letter ISO3166 codes, and must be wrapped in braces; fingerprints may be preceded by a dollar sign. In my experience, this holds true all over a torrc. Matt On 12/04/2016 04:10 PM, Alan wrote: > I've been trying to find the answer to $ prefix or not. I've just this > second added it to both. Maybe without it assumes it's a nickname. > >> Good question some of mine are not but then I thought the fingerprint had >> to be prefixed with a $ sign? I dont see any errors in the log when I use >> $ or without a $ sign? >> >> Looking at Atlas the myfamily fingerprints seem to have a $ in front of >> them? But in man pages it just says 'fingerprint' with no syntax >> >> Anyway Atlas can take awhile to update - hours rather than days >> >> >>> On 4 Dec 2016, at 20:47, Alanwrote: >>> >>> Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. >>> I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: >>> MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 >>> >>> Then sighup'd both relays through arm. >>> >>> Do you know how long it takes Atlas to show the changes? >>> >>> Alan >>> Hi Alan, Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run both TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. Please declare so in the .torrc. Thanks! On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan" wrote: In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is normally between 2-4 weeks on average. These are my relays: TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 960B842B57 MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D 8D948B0887 Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have this set? > In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual > that > you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany.ÃÂ > It's > not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but > also > a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly > a > lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor > network can not get enough of. > ___ > 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 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 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
5kbit/s traffic and consensus weight of 14 after running for a month, including last 9 days with the same IP and a Stable flag - you consider this normal? -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of teor Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:52 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Rana <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. > > Attn: Kurt Besig > > Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power > supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and > memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable > 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent > Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on > the same Pi. > > This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to > who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by > the current DirAuth algorithms. > > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who > could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. Rana, Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of that size should expect. When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. 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 ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
No all good just add them as you are tor adds a $ if you dont its not an issue Cheers Mark B > On 4 Dec 2016, at 20:47, Alanwrote: > > Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. > I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: > MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 > > Then sighup'd both relays through arm. > > Do you know how long it takes Atlas to show the changes? > > Alan > >> Hi Alan, >> >> Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run both >> TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. >> >> Please declare so in the .torrc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan" wrote: >> >> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's >> as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every >> time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is >> normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >> >> These are my relays: >> >> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 >> 960B842B57 >> >> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D >> 8D948B0887 >> >> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have >> this set? >> >>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that >>> you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany.Ã >>> It's >>> not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but >>> also >>> a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a >>> lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor >>> network can not get enough of. >>> ___ >>> 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 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
I've been trying to find the answer to $ prefix or not. I've just this second added it to both. Maybe without it assumes it's a nickname. > Good question some of mine are not but then I thought the fingerprint had > to be prefixed with a $ sign? I dont see any errors in the log when I use > $ or without a $ sign? > > Looking at Atlas the myfamily fingerprints seem to have a $ in front of > them? But in man pages it just says 'fingerprint' with no syntax > > Anyway Atlas can take awhile to update - hours rather than days > > >> On 4 Dec 2016, at 20:47, Alanwrote: >> >> Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. >> I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: >> MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 >> >> Then sighup'd both relays through arm. >> >> Do you know how long it takes Atlas to show the changes? >> >> Alan >> >>> Hi Alan, >>> >>> Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run >>> both >>> TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. >>> >>> Please declare so in the .torrc. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan" wrote: >>> >>> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static >>> ip's >>> as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every >>> time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is >>> normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >>> >>> These are my relays: >>> >>> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 >>> 960B842B57 >>> >>> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D >>> 8D948B0887 >>> >>> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays >>> have >>> this set? >>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany.ÃÂ It's not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor network can not get enough of. ___ 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 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 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Thanks Netgear Ready for the constructive approach. Here is my torrc (nickname redacted). There is no hidden service running on the Pi and no connections to the transparent proxy (its respective wifi interface is down). The Pi is doing nothing except the Tor relay, memory utilization 13%, CPU close to nil. My uplink is consistent at 1.5 mbps measured using speedtest-cli from the Pi, downlink is much higher. Consensus weight is 14 (!), Atlas "advertised" bandwidth currently 85 KB/s but sometimes reaches as high as 170 KB/s. Actual traffic is practically negligible (14 MB in 6 hours). I have a Stable flag and am running for a month, the last 9 days with the same IP. Help will be much appreciated. Rana - Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log VirtualAddrNetworkIPv4 10.192.0.0/10 AutomapHostsSuffixes .onion,.exit AutomapHostsOnResolve 1 TransPort 9040 TransListenAddress 172.24.1.1 DNSPort 53 DNSListenAddress 172.24.1.1 DisableDebuggerAttachment 0 RunAsDaemon 1 HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/hidden_service/ HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:80 HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/other_hidden_service/ HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:80 HiddenServicePort 22 127.0.0.1:22 ORPort 9001 Nickname RelayBandwidthRate 250 KB # Throttle traffic to250KB/s (2.0 Mbit/sec) RelayBandwidthBurst 350 KB # But allow bursts up to 350KB/s (2.8 Mbit/sec) DirPort 9030 # what port to advertise for directory connections ExitPolicy reject *:* # no exits allowed -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Netgear Ready Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:44 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP Hey, Im not sure if I'm entitled to post here, but i think my contribution might be useful. I am running two relays on dynamic IPs which change about very 24hours, my advertised bandwidth is around 700KB/s, Actually used are around 150KB/s which gives about 20% of the advertised bandwidth. This ratio is of course little bit lower than the static IP relays but by no means as severe as Rana’s. Maybe Rana’s configuration might have a problem and we should make a step back and look closer on Rana’s configuration to figure out what’s going on. Kind regards ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Good question some of mine are not but then I thought the fingerprint had to be prefixed with a $ sign? I dont see any errors in the log when I use $ or without a $ sign? Looking at Atlas the myfamily fingerprints seem to have a $ in front of them? But in man pages it just says 'fingerprint' with no syntax Anyway Atlas can take awhile to update - hours rather than days > On 4 Dec 2016, at 20:47, Alanwrote: > > Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. > I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: > MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 > > Then sighup'd both relays through arm. > > Do you know how long it takes Atlas to show the changes? > > Alan > >> Hi Alan, >> >> Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run both >> TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. >> >> Please declare so in the .torrc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan" wrote: >> >> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's >> as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every >> time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is >> normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >> >> These are my relays: >> >> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 >> 960B842B57 >> >> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D >> 8D948B0887 >> >> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have >> this set? >> >>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that >>> you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany.Ã >>> It's >>> not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but >>> also >>> a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a >>> lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor >>> network can not get enough of. >>> ___ >>> 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 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 07:47, Alanwrote: > > Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. > I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: > MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 > > Then sighup'd both relays through arm. > > Do you know how long it takes Atlas to show the changes? 25 - 85 minutes, as long as OnionOO is running. Tim > Alan > >> Hi Alan, >> >> Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run both >> TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. >> >> Please declare so in the .torrc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan" wrote: >> >> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's >> as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every >> time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is >> normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >> >> These are my relays: >> >> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 >> 960B842B57 >> >> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D >> 8D948B0887 >> >> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have >> this set? >> >>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that >>> you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany.Ã >>> It's >>> not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but >>> also >>> a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a >>> lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor >>> network can not get enough of. >>> ___ >>> 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 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 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 07:44, Netgear Readywrote: > > Hey, > > Im not sure if I'm entitled to post here, but i think my contribution > might be useful. I am running two relays on dynamic IPs which change > about very 24hours, my advertised bandwidth is around 700KB/s, > Actually used are around 150KB/s which gives about 20% of the > advertised bandwidth. This ratio is of course little bit lower than > the static IP relays but by no means as severe as Rana’s. Maybe Rana’s > configuration might have a problem and we should make a step back and > look closer on Rana’s configuration to figure out what’s going on. Yes, that's an important point. If other operators with dynamic IPs aren't seeing this issue, perhaps the dynamic IP is not the problem? Maybe Rana's Raspberry Pi (or router) can't handle the number of connections required to run a relay? Maybe their ISP has poor international connectivity? Maybe their connection can't sustain traffic speeds reliably? There are plenty of answers other than a dynamic IP address. In fact, the bandwidth measurement code doesn't even store IP addresses, so the issue can't be there. But the reachability code does reset the time when it last reached the relay every time the address changes, in node_addrs_changed(). So there is that factor as well, which would reset the flags. But it still shouldn't affect the bandwidth measurements. They should be much higher. Tim > Kind regards > > > 2016-12-04 20:23 GMT, Sec INT : >> Hi Alan >> >> If you have more than one relay you add the fingerprint of any other relay >> you run to your torrc file - if say I ran 10 relays and exits there may be a >> chance that you would route through just my servers thus you would not be >> anonymous as I could follow you through from entry to exit. >> >> In short if you have more than one relay or exit add the fingerprint of the >> other relays exits to your torrc file >> >> Cheers Snap >> >> >>> On 4 Dec 2016, at 19:58, Alan wrote: >>> >>> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's >>> as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every >>> time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is >>> normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >>> >>> These are my relays: >>> >>> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8960B842B57 >>> >>> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 >>> >>> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have >>> this set? >>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor network can not get enough of. 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 06:16, Matt Traudtwrote: > > If you would like to see something change, it would be a good idea to go > to https://trac.torproject.org, create an account (or use the > cypherpunks one), and open a ticket stating facts such as > > - where you saw that the Tor Project saying they want relays with > dynamic IPs > - your reasoning for why teor's 4 bullet points about "advantages to > resetting when a relay's IP address changes" are not valid > > If the Tor Project really said they want relays with dynamic IPs, maybe > the wording needs to be modified. I imagine, for instance, they might > have said dynamic IPs are good for bridges. Also, Rana, perhaps your set would be more valuable to clients as a bridge than a relay? But that's a problem for clients when your IP address changes, because they then lose access to your bridge. (Unless they ask the bridge authority for your new descriptor. I'm not sure if that code works the way we want it to - I don't know how often we test it.) 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, Ranawrote: > >> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. > > Attn: Kurt Besig > > Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power > supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and > memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable > 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent > Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on > the same Pi. > > This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to > who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by > the current DirAuth algorithms. > > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who > could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. Rana, Your relay is actually getting about as much traffic as a middle relay of that size should expect. When you change the IP address, it takes a while to re-establish that traffic, as it should, due to the reasons I mentioned in my original email. 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Thanks for that, I've made changes to both torrc files. I've added MyFamily with each others finger print like so: MyFamily E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 Then sighup'd both relays through arm. Do you know how long it takes Atlas to show the changes? Alan > Hi Alan, > > Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run both > TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. > > Please declare so in the .torrc. > > Thanks! > > > On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan"wrote: > > In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's > as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every > time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is > normally between 2-4 weeks on average. > > These are my relays: > > TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 > 960B842B57 > > MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D > 8D948B0887 > > Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have > this set? > >> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that >> you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany.Ã >> It's >> not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but >> also >> a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a >> lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor >> network can not get enough of. >> ___ >> 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 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Hey, Im not sure if I'm entitled to post here, but i think my contribution might be useful. I am running two relays on dynamic IPs which change about very 24hours, my advertised bandwidth is around 700KB/s, Actually used are around 150KB/s which gives about 20% of the advertised bandwidth. This ratio is of course little bit lower than the static IP relays but by no means as severe as Rana’s. Maybe Rana’s configuration might have a problem and we should make a step back and look closer on Rana’s configuration to figure out what’s going on. Kind regards 2016-12-04 20:23 GMT, Sec INT: > Hi Alan > > If you have more than one relay you add the fingerprint of any other relay > you run to your torrc file - if say I ran 10 relays and exits there may be a > chance that you would route through just my servers thus you would not be > anonymous as I could follow you through from entry to exit. > > In short if you have more than one relay or exit add the fingerprint of the > other relays exits to your torrc file > > Cheers Snap > > >> On 4 Dec 2016, at 19:58, Alan wrote: >> >> In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's >> as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every >> time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is >> normally between 2-4 weeks on average. >> >> These are my relays: >> >> TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8960B842B57 >> >> MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) >> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 >> >> Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have >> this set? >> >>> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that >>> you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's >>> not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but >>> also >>> a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a >>> lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor >>> network can not get enough of. >>> ___ >>> 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 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Hi Alan If you have more than one relay you add the fingerprint of any other relay you run to your torrc file - if say I ran 10 relays and exits there may be a chance that you would route through just my servers thus you would not be anonymous as I could follow you through from entry to exit. In short if you have more than one relay or exit add the fingerprint of the other relays exits to your torrc file Cheers Snap > On 4 Dec 2016, at 19:58, Alanwrote: > > In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's > as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every > time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is > normally between 2-4 weeks on average. > > These are my relays: > > TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8960B842B57 > > MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 > > Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have > this set? > >> In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that >> you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's >> not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also >> a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a >> lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor >> network can not get enough of. >> ___ >> 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Hi Alan, Family indicates they're all operated by the same person. as you run both TheCosmos and MilkyWay, they are in the same family. Please declare so in the .torrc. Thanks! On 4 Dec 2016 8:07 PM, "Alan"wrote: In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is normally between 2-4 weeks on average. These are my relays: TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8 960B842B57 MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D 8D948B0887 Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have this set? > In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that > you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's > not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also > a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a > lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor > network can not get enough of. > ___ > 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
In the UK it depends what ISP your on. Virgin Media gives out static ip's as far as i know. BT (what i'm using) is dynamic, the ip changes every time the router reboots. It reboots when it detects a fault which is normally between 2-4 weeks on average. These are my relays: TheCosmos (running on home ip (raspberry pi)) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/38B330302F1FB79ED11A468FC9DEA8960B842B57 MilkyWay (running on Digital Ocean) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E856ABA2020AA9C483CC2D9B4C878D8D948B0887 Does anyone know what the 'Family Members' does and should my relays have this set? > In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that > you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's > not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but also > a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs properly a > lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that the Tor > network can not get enough of. > ___ > 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 19:46 schrieb Rana: > Paul, you may be a very, very smart dude who needs no clarifications and I > may be a passive aggressive liberal fascist but you are totally wrong - I > have NO idea what "submit a patch" means https://lmgtfy.com/?q=submit+a+patch! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 04.12.16 19:50, Rana wrote: > Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have > "programming skills"? Who said there is? There is, however, an incentive (I'd even call it a requirement) to be polite when posting on a public mailing list. An accusatory or hostile tone is unlikely to result in helpful responses. -Ralph ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 20:24 schrieb ane...@tutanota.de: > In Germany, it's quite usual that you have a dynamic IP and unusual that > you have static IP. Not just a few relays are located in Germany. It's > not just a question of frustration of owners of dynamic IP relay, but > also a matter of bandwith waste. If Tor cannot handle dynamic IPs > properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith is something that > the Tor network can not get enough of. In Soviet Russia, it's quite usual that you have a only IP over Avian Carriers (RFC 2549) and unusual that you have fibre to your home. Not that much relays are located in Soviet Russia. It's not just a question of frustration of owners connected via avian carriers but also a matter of bandwith waste and diversity. If Tor cannot handle avian carriers properly a lot of bandwith is not used. And bandwith and diversity is something that the Tor network can not get enough of. SCNR signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 19:50 schrieb Rana: > Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming > skills"? This requirement does not exist. But there if you want make tor behave differently than it does, programming skills are welcome (but not necessary). > [tor] should say so and I would stop wasting my time. [...] > Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken. Telling "tor" what it has to do will not work. For sure. Contribute nothing - expect nothing. Nobody feels obliged to change the code just to make tor behave as you like under your setup. (yes, I know, you are at least willing to contribute your bandwidth). You have to convince someone that your needs are worth to be implemented or just implement them on your own. Listening to explanations why tor behaves like it does and repeating your demands is possibly not the best way to contribute. Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Rana I don't think there's more anyone can do here. I think people here have done a good job explaining _why_ you see what you see. If you would like to see something change, it would be a good idea to go to https://trac.torproject.org, create an account (or use the cypherpunks one), and open a ticket stating facts such as - where you saw that the Tor Project saying they want relays with dynamic IPs - your reasoning for why teor's 4 bullet points about "advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes" are not valid If the Tor Project really said they want relays with dynamic IPs, maybe the wording needs to be modified. I imagine, for instance, they might have said dynamic IPs are good for bridges. In any case, your ticket will be best received if doesn't have a demanding/entitled/accusatory tone and has concrete ideas for what should be done. Thank you for running a relay and please do not be discouraged by numbers. Best Matt On 12/04/2016 01:46 PM, Rana wrote: > Paul, you may be a very, very smart dude who needs no clarifications and I > may be a passive aggressive liberal fascist but you are totally wrong - I > have NO idea what "submit a patch" means in whatever jargon you are using. > Submit what? To whom? Where? In what form? > > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of pa011 > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:38 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > Rana, I don’t think ""submit a patch" needs any clarification. > > Maybe you are a little bit to aggressive in your wording :-) ? > > I do have a dynamic IP as well on one relay and do know that frustration. > > Relax > > Paul > > > Am 04.12.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Rana: >> Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch". >> >> I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of >> being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have >> already done here, in full detail. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On >> Behalf Of Sebastian Niehaus >> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM >> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org >> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with >> dynamic IP >> >> Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana: >> >>> In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it >>> should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should >>> fix what's broken. >> >> Please submit a patch. >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive. >> >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
There isn't. On Dec 4, 2016 12:50 PM, "Rana" <ranaventu...@gmail.com> wrote: Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming skills"? -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:40 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote: > In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it > should say so and I would stop wasting my time. What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything. -Ralph ___ 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 mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Since when is there a requirement for a relay operator to have "programming skills"? -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 8:40 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote: > In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it > should say so and I would stop wasting my time. What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything. -Ralph ___ 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 12/04/16 13:39, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 04.12.16 17:54, Rana wrote: > >> In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it >> should say so and I would stop wasting my time. > > What's with the entitlement issues? You are free to contribute to the > Tor project, but if you don't have the programming skills or the wish > to do so, at least don't complain about other peoples' work in such a > hostile manner. Nobody here owes you anything. > Woah. I think this discussion got a little out-of-hand quickly. Rana's point about the desirability of dynamic IPs is certainly of-interest to a wide array of people. Raising it is a worthwhile question or contribution in my humble opinion. The point is worth a discussion and feedback. Not everyone running a relay should be technically required to submit a diff when raising a point. There are certainly software projects that are quick to reply with that (ahem). A more productive direction might be pointing point https://trac.torproject.org/. It's worth noting that replying to what is likely a common thought among a lot of relay operators, you are not only replying to Rana, but to hosts of people who stumble upon this thread from the archives. g -- 5F77 765E 40D6 5340 A0F5 3401 4997 FF11 A86F 44E2 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Rana, I don’t think ""submit a patch" needs any clarification. Maybe you are a little bit to aggressive in your wording :-) ? I do have a dynamic IP as well on one relay and do know that frustration. Relax Paul Am 04.12.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Rana: > Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch". > > I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of > being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have > already done here, in full detail. > > -Original Message- > From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf > Of Sebastian Niehaus > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM > To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP > > Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana: > >> In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it >> should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should >> fix what's broken. > > Please submit a patch. > > > Thanks. > > > Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive. > > > Sebastian > > > > > ___ > 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] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Please clarify what you mean by "submit a patch". I am not one of Tor technical contributors, nor do I presume capability of being one. I can only report my findings as a relay operator. Which I have already done here, in full detail. -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Niehaus Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 7:05 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana: > In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it > should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should > fix what's broken. Please submit a patch. Thanks. Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive. Sebastian ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
Am 04.12.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Rana: > In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it > should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor > should fix what's broken. Please submit a patch. Thanks. Crying about what tor shold do to please you seems not very productive. Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
-Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Matt Traudt Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 6:20 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 12/04/2016 10:39 AM, Rana wrote: >> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. > > Attn: Kurt Besig > > Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power > supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and > memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable > 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent > Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on > the same Pi. > > This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to > who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by > the current DirAuth algorithms. > > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who > could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > > Perhaps all that other stuff you have running on the Pi is hurting your ability to max out your connection. In any case, as I mentioned on your Reddit post a week or so ago, just because you have X available bandwidth, doesn't mean Tor will be able to use all X. I have some relays on 10 Gbps links. Even if they were only 1 Gbps links, the max traffic I'm seeing right now is about 65 Mbps. Atlas says I'm "advertising" (been measured at) ~140 Mbps. https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/x76slvferal So I'm pushing roughly half that atlas says I could be, and I'm pushing nowhere near the amount my hosting provider says my links are capable of. I've heard (but haven't verified) that clients rarely use non-Stable non-Fast relays. So if you are struggling to maintain those flags, then that would be why you're having trouble getting up to 1.5 Mbps usage. Here is how Stable is determined according to dir-spec https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2267 Finally, I'd like to reiterate teor > * a changed IP usually means a changed network with different > characteristics, > * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be > just as reachable or stable at the new IP, > * stolen keys become much less valuable, > * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged. It sounds like your IP is _too_ dynamic for best supporting the network. Thank you for running a relay and please do not be discouraged by numbers. Matt __ Thank you Matt but some of your assumptions concerning my relay do not hold water. Yes, I do have a Stable flag. No, my hidden service and my Tor proxy and My wireless access point are NOT hindering the operation of my relay, since I disabled them 3 weeks ago to make sure they do not interfere (and they could not possibly interfere when they were not disabled, their bandwidth, memory and CPU consumption were practically zero). No, my "advertised" (misnomer in Atlas of course, should say "measured", caused much confusion on my side) bandwidth is NOT a small fraction of my real advertised bandwdith, it is about 50% of my advertised bandwidth. No, my actual bandwidth is not just a 2-3 of times less than that measured and reported in Atlas, like in your case. In my case it is 160 [HUNDRED AND SIXTY] times less. Here is how I calculated it: my Atlas "advertised" bandwidth is 100 KB/s (=800 kbit/s). Every 6 hours my relay sends about 14 MB (as reported in heartbeats in the log). Therefore my actual average bandwidth utilization is 5 kbit/s. No, changed IP usually does NOT mean changed network. It usually means dynamic IP which has nothing to do with changes in the network or its performance, or stolen keys. In short, if Tor Project does not want relays with dynamic IP, it should say so and I would stop wasting my time. Otherwise, Tor should fix what's broken. There are 7000 relays total. Do you know how many Raspberry Pis are out there? Many, many times more, many of them run by privacy enthusiasts with dynamic IP. Tor is flushing them all down the drain but STATES that it wants relays with dynamic IP, too (I saw it somewhere on official Tor Project pages). ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
With bandwidth rating of 14 [FOURTEEN] after 1 month of almost uninterrupted presence, including last 9 days of absolutely stable performance and stable IP, and with Stable flag and with Fast and HSDir votes from three DirAuths? Naah, I do not believe this. Something is broken there and this something is not my relay. -Original Message- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Seichter Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 6:15 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP On 04.12.16 16:39, Rana wrote: > >I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian > >dissident who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the >> free world. >So just leave your relay running, and when other relays with better >connectivity and a higher consensus rate are saturated, yours will start to >see more traffic. >-Ralph With bandwidth rating of 14 [FOURTEEN] after 1 month of almost uninterrupted presence, including last 9 days of absolutely stable performance and stable IP, and with Stable flag and with Fast and HSDir votes from three DirAuths? Naah, I do not believe this. Something is broken there and this something is certainly not my relay. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 12/04/2016 10:39 AM, Rana wrote: >> For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. > > Attn: Kurt Besig > > Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power > supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and > memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable > 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent > Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on > the same Pi. > > This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to > who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by > the current DirAuth algorithms. > > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who > could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. > > > Perhaps all that other stuff you have running on the Pi is hurting your ability to max out your connection. In any case, as I mentioned on your Reddit post a week or so ago, just because you have X available bandwidth, doesn't mean Tor will be able to use all X. I have some relays on 10 Gbps links. Even if they were only 1 Gbps links, the max traffic I'm seeing right now is about 65 Mbps. Atlas says I'm "advertising" (been measured at) ~140 Mbps. https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/x76slvferal So I'm pushing roughly half that atlas says I could be, and I'm pushing nowhere near the amount my hosting provider says my links are capable of. I've heard (but haven't verified) that clients rarely use non-Stable non-Fast relays. So if you are struggling to maintain those flags, then that would be why you're having trouble getting up to 1.5 Mbps usage. Here is how Stable is determined according to dir-spec https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2267 Finally, I'd like to reiterate teor > * a changed IP usually means a changed network with different > characteristics, > * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will > be just as reachable or stable at the new IP, > * stolen keys become much less valuable, > * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged. It sounds like your IP is _too_ dynamic for best supporting the network. Thank you for running a relay and please do not be discouraged by numbers. Matt ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 04.12.16 16:39, Rana wrote: > I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian > dissident who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the > free world. So just leave your relay running, and when other relays with better connectivity and a higher consensus rate are saturated, yours will start to see more traffic. -Ralph ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
>For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. Attn: Kurt Besig Well I kind o' like my Raspberry Pi that cost me $40 including box and power supply and SD card and door to door delivery, with far more horsepower and memory than needed for running Tor relay, and my free and absolutely stable 1.5mbps that I want to donate to Tor courtesy of my ISP, and my transparent Tor proxy and my hidden service and my wireless access point that lurk on the same Pi. This is not a good reason to punish my relay. Makes ZERO sense to me and to who knows how many people like me whose relays are flushed down the drain by the current DirAuth algorithms. I can think of many an Iranian or Turkish or Chinese or Russian dissident who could use 1.5 mbps bandwidth to communicate with the free world. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
On 12/4/2016 1:03 AM, teor wrote: > >> On 4 Dec. 2016, at 01:06, Ranawrote: >> >> I have been running a relay with dynamic IP for a month now and quite >> obviously my relay is severely punished for having a dynamic IP. The IP may >> change once in several days (currently running over a week with the same IP >> and I just got my Stable flag back again, about 3 weeks after losing it). >> The relay’s throughput is a tiny fraction (less than 10%) of the actual >> capacity which I programmed the torrc file to donate. The capacity I wanted >> to donate is less than the uplink speed of my internet connection (the >> downlink speed is higher than downlink and is thus irrelevant here). > > A slow ramp-up is normal, but you seem to be experiencing something > different: > > https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay > > Given what you said about the flags, it's likely the directory > authorities' reachability and stability checks that are removing the > flags from your relay: > > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n851 > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n3170 > >> I started with a consensus rating of 21, which went up to 30 and then after >> a couple of IP changes collapsed to 13. It is now 14, and never went above >> this again, with the relay running ALL THE TIME stably for a month minus a >> small number of restarts due to IP changes. As I said, stable IP for a week >> now and a Stable flag. > > The Tor bandwidth authorities don't store your relay's IP address, so > it's probably not the bandwidth measurements that are the issue: > > https://gitweb.torproject.org/pytorctl.git/tree/SQLSupport.py#n85 > >> 1. Why is the relay with dynamic IP punished? This makes zero sense to >> me. IMHO changing an IP once a week and running stably between such changes >> is stable enough for all practical purposes. And since the fingerprint of >> the relay does not change when the IP is changed, dirauths know that this is >> the same stable node. > > No, that's not strictly true, all the directory authorities know is that > it is a node that has access to the same private key. > > There are advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes: > * a changed IP usually means a changed network with different > characteristics, > * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be just > as reachable or stable at the new IP, > * stolen keys become much less valuable, > * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged. > > To resolve this issue, I recommend getting a static IPv4 address with > your ISP, or renting a cheap VPS with a static IPv4 address. > >> 2. The “advertised bandwidth” that I see in Atlas has absolutely >> nothing to do either with the bandwidth that I advertise (it is 3-4 times >> larger than what I see in Atlas) or with the actual data throughput of my >> relay (it is 20 times smaller than what I see in Atlas). Can somebody >> explain this? > > It's likely related to the fact that your relay is never on the same IP > long enough to get the Stable or Fast flags, so no clients use it. > > But I don't know your relay's fingerprint, so I can only repeat the > general advice I have given others with similar questions: > > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010913.html > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010928.html > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010916.html > > (There are more if you search the list archives.) > > That should be enough to get you started, if you'd still like specific > advice after reading those threads, feel free to let us know your > relay's fingerprint. > > T > For as little as $10.00 US there are VPS' with static ip's.. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP
> On 4 Dec. 2016, at 01:06, Ranawrote: > > I have been running a relay with dynamic IP for a month now and quite > obviously my relay is severely punished for having a dynamic IP. The IP may > change once in several days (currently running over a week with the same IP > and I just got my Stable flag back again, about 3 weeks after losing it). The > relay’s throughput is a tiny fraction (less than 10%) of the actual capacity > which I programmed the torrc file to donate. The capacity I wanted to donate > is less than the uplink speed of my internet connection (the downlink speed > is higher than downlink and is thus irrelevant here). A slow ramp-up is normal, but you seem to be experiencing something different: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay Given what you said about the flags, it's likely the directory authorities' reachability and stability checks that are removing the flags from your relay: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n851 https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/dirserv.c#n3170 > I started with a consensus rating of 21, which went up to 30 and then after a > couple of IP changes collapsed to 13. It is now 14, and never went above this > again, with the relay running ALL THE TIME stably for a month minus a small > number of restarts due to IP changes. As I said, stable IP for a week now and > a Stable flag. The Tor bandwidth authorities don't store your relay's IP address, so it's probably not the bandwidth measurements that are the issue: https://gitweb.torproject.org/pytorctl.git/tree/SQLSupport.py#n85 > 1. Why is the relay with dynamic IP punished? This makes zero sense to > me. IMHO changing an IP once a week and running stably between such changes > is stable enough for all practical purposes. And since the fingerprint of the > relay does not change when the IP is changed, dirauths know that this is the > same stable node. No, that's not strictly true, all the directory authorities know is that it is a node that has access to the same private key. There are advantages to resetting when a relay's IP address changes: * a changed IP usually means a changed network with different characteristics, * if the relay IP address changes, there's no guarantee it will be just as reachable or stable at the new IP, * stolen keys become much less valuable, * duplicate keys / failover strategies are discouraged. To resolve this issue, I recommend getting a static IPv4 address with your ISP, or renting a cheap VPS with a static IPv4 address. > 2. The “advertised bandwidth” that I see in Atlas has absolutely > nothing to do either with the bandwidth that I advertise (it is 3-4 times > larger than what I see in Atlas) or with the actual data throughput of my > relay (it is 20 times smaller than what I see in Atlas). Can somebody explain > this? It's likely related to the fact that your relay is never on the same IP long enough to get the Stable or Fast flags, so no clients use it. But I don't know your relay's fingerprint, so I can only repeat the general advice I have given others with similar questions: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010913.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010928.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010916.html (There are more if you search the list archives.) That should be enough to get you started, if you'd still like specific advice after reading those threads, feel free to let us know your relay's fingerprint. 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 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays