Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP

[teor]

> On 3 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Rana  wrote:
> 
> 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

[Rana]

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

[teor]

> On 28 Dec 2016, at 02:50, Rana  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.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

[Rana]

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

[balbea16]

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

[grarpamp]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Rana  wrote:
> 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

[Rana]

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

[Gumby]

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

[Rana]

@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

[grarpamp]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Rana  wrote:
> 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

[Rana]

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

[grarpamp]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Rana  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

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP

[Rana]

-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

[David Serrano]

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

[Rana]

@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

[Sebastian Hahn]

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, Rana  wrote:
> 
> 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

[lage gu]

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

[Rana]

@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

[Andreas Krey]

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 Torvalds 
Date: 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

[Rana]

@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

[diffusae]

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

[diffusae]

:-)

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

[Tristan]

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

[Ralph Seichter]

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

[Tristan]

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

[Rana]

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

[Ralph Seichter]

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

[Rana]

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

[Duncan Guthrie]

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

[Rana]

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

[Roman Mamedov]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 00:36:15 +
Duncan Guthrie  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

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP

[Duncan Guthrie]

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

[Roman Mamedov]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:00:20 +0100
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

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

[diffusae]

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

[SuperSluether]

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

[diffusae]

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

[Tristan]

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

[pa011]

 
> 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

[r1610091651]

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 Rana  wrote:

>
> -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

[Rana]

-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

[Rana]

>
>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

[Tristan]

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

[Duncan Guthrie]

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

[Kurt Besig]

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

[Pascal Terjan]

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

[grarpamp]

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

[teor]

> 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

[Rana]

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

[Rana]

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

[teor]

(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

[Greg Moss]

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

[Rana]

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

[teor]

> 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

[Tristan]

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

[teor]

> 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

[Roman Mamedov]

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

[Matt Traudt]

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, 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
>>>
>>> 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.Â
> 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

[Rana]

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

[Sec INT]

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, 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
> 
> 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.Â
>>> 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

[Alan]

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, 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
>>
>> 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.Â
 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

[Rana]

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

[Sec INT]

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, 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
> 
> 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.Â
>>> 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

[teor]

> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 07:47, 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
> 
> 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.Â
>>> 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

[teor]

> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 07:44, Netgear Ready  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 :
>> 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

[teor]

> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 06:16, Matt Traudt  wrote:
> 
> 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

[teor]

> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 02:39, 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.

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

[Alan]

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.Â
>> 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

[Netgear Ready]

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

[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

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP

[Diarmaid McManus]

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

[Alan]

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

[Sebastian Niehaus]

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

[Ralph Seichter]

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

[Sebastian Niehaus]

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

[Sebastian Niehaus]

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

[Matt Traudt]

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

[Tristan]

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

[Rana]

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

[George]

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

[pa011]

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

[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

Re: [tor-relays] Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic IP

[Sebastian Niehaus]

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

[Rana]

-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

[Rana]

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

[Matt Traudt]

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

[Ralph Seichter]

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

[Rana]

>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

[Kurt Besig]

On 12/4/2016 1:03 AM, teor wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Dec. 2016, at 01:06, Rana  wrote:
>>
>> 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

[teor]

> On 4 Dec. 2016, at 01:06, Rana  wrote:
> 
> 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