I haven't had the time and sufficient knowledge to work out what's wrong, but
for
some reason the node is back online for a 'record' of nearly 48 hours now:
http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=d3eb313299a0082a4a4e10e0eb758e4f0163f4f0
I didn't change anything and the ISP didn't inf
Hi Alexandru,
On 8/4/09, Alexandru Cezar wrote:
> Hi list, hi Lee,
>
>> > It at least shouldn't be a problem for TOR, because it has worked with
>> > that
>> > setup for months.
>> Unless you know for sure that nothing has changed on the path between
>> your server and all the directory servers y
Hi list, hi Lee,
> > It at least shouldn't be a problem for TOR, because it has worked with that
> > setup for months.
> Unless you know for sure that nothing has changed on the path between
> your server and all the directory servers you don't know if path MTU
> discovery being broken (if it real
> >However, as I see, your problem's already fixed?
> Actually, it was Alexandru reporting the problem, not I, but it's not
> obvious that it is fixed. kyirong2 has been missing from the consensus
> for quite a few hours now. I don't know whether that means he is trying
> different Xen trick
Hi Timo,
> besides the routing stuff I saw that on the mentioned IP (see above)
> there's a nice disclaimer-like website that impresses me. I'm still not
> sure whether to pimp my node to be an exit node or not (due to the
> supressing that happens here in Germany). However, this suits me well.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thus Scott Bennett spake:
| On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:41:46 +0200 Timo Schoeler
| wrote:
|> thus Scott Bennett spake:
| Actually, no, I didn't, but I did write :-) :
|> | On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:03:10 +0300 "Alexandru Cezar"
|> | wrote:
|
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:41:46 +0200 Timo Schoeler
wrote:
>thus Scott Bennett spake:
Actually, no, I didn't, but I did write :-) :
>| On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:03:10 +0300 "Alexandru Cezar"
>| wrote:
>|>> Best of luck getting your provider to straighten out the routing.
>|> I have limit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thus Alexandru Cezar spake:
| Hi list,
|
| I am still struggling to get my server back on the list of Tor nodes.
For several months it
| was among the top 5 nodes, pumping 15TB a month. I am paying a lot of
money for that machine,
| and I don't see wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thus Scott Bennett spake:
| On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:03:10 +0300 "Alexandru Cezar"
| wrote:
|>> Best of luck getting your provider to straighten out the routing.
|> I have limited experience in running servers. From what I found out,
my Xen dom0 i
Hi Alexandru,
On 7/20/09, Alexandru Cezar wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
>> Have you talked to your provider about reachability? Earlier I
>> couldn't do a traceroute to your machine & now I can:
>
> I haven't spoken to them, no. What I did was reconfigure the firewall to
> allow ICMP. Could it be momentar
Hi Lee,
> Have you talked to your provider about reachability? Earlier I
> couldn't do a traceroute to your machine & now I can:
I haven't spoken to them, no. What I did was reconfigure the firewall to allow
ICMP. Could it be momentarily routing problems that cause this? At the moment,
the node
On 7/20/09, Alexandru Cezar wrote:
>> Best of luck getting your provider to straighten out the routing.
>
> I have limited experience in running servers. From what I found out, my Xen
> dom0 is traceable
> (89.248.169.106), while the virtual host running TOR is not (89.248.169.109,
> vif-bridge).
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:03:10 +0300 "Alexandru Cezar"
wrote:
>> Best of luck getting your provider to straighten out the routing.
>
>I have limited experience in running servers. From what I found out, my Xen
>dom0 is traceable
>(89.248.169.106), while the virtual host running TOR is not (89.
On 7/20/09, Alexandru Cezar wrote:
>> 89.248.169.109 doesn't answer a ping, so I don't know of an easy way
>> to check if that's the problem or no.
>
> It at least shouldn't be a problem for TOR, because it has worked with that
> setup for months.
Unless you know for sure that nothing has changed
> Best of luck getting your provider to straighten out the routing.
I have limited experience in running servers. From what I found out, my Xen
dom0 is traceable
(89.248.169.106), while the virtual host running TOR is not (89.248.169.109,
vif-bridge). I can
still access the web server running on
> 89.248.169.109 doesn't answer a ping, so I don't know of an easy way
> to check if that's the problem or no.
It at least shouldn't be a problem for TOR, because it has worked with that
setup for months. To avoid further confusion, I have enabled answers to ICMP
requests.
The IP has no PTR rec
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:34:27 +0200 Olaf Selke
wrote:
>Alexandru Cezar schrieb:
>>
>> It seems as if the node is unreachable from some of the authority servers,
>> but I have no idea
>> what to do about that. My ISP says that routing is fine and everything
>> should work as
>> expected. I d
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:23:04 -0400
> Subject: Re: My tor exit node is STILL gone from the node list
> From: ler...@gmail.com
> To: or-talk@freehaven.net
>
> On 7/20/09, downie - wrote:
> >
> > Moria now thinks you are at 89.248.169.109
> > Traceroute
On 7/20/09, Olaf Selke wrote:
> Lee schrieb:
>> Considering how many places block ICMP, traceroute is not a good way
>> to determine connectivity.
>>
>> telnet 89.248.169.109 80
>> works for me and traceroute doesn't:
>
> oops, you're right! The same here. I didn't notice that before.
> Neverthele
On 7/20/09, downie - wrote:
>
> Moria now thinks you are at 89.248.169.109
> Traceroute and Netcat both fail from AS13285 in the UK:
Try netcat with the current address of 89.248.169.109 instead of .108
..snip..
>
> nc -v -w10 89.248.169.108 8080
> 89.248.169.108: inverse host lookup failed: U
Lee schrieb:
> Considering how many places block ICMP, traceroute is not a good way
> to determine connectivity.
>
> telnet 89.248.169.109 80
> works for me and traceroute doesn't:
oops, you're right! The same here. I didn't notice that before.
Nevertheless blocking icmp at peering points is very
Moria now thinks you are at 89.248.169.109
Traceroute and Netcat both fail from AS13285 in the UK:
...
8 openhosting-pp-1-thn.as13285.net (78.144.3.17) 34.393 ms 33.99 ms 63.96 ms
9 xe-2-3-0.bb1.ams1.nl.gbxs.net (193.27.64.81) 343.545 ms 73.367 ms 72.335
ms
10 * * *
nc -v -w10 89.248.1
Considering how many places block ICMP, traceroute is not a good way
to determine connectivity.
telnet 89.248.169.109 80
works for me and traceroute doesn't:
C:\>tracert 89.248.169.109
Tracing route to 89.248.169.109 over a maximum of 30 hops
<.. snip ..>
15 105 ms 105 ms 105 ms 149.6.
Alexandru Cezar schrieb:
>
> It seems as if the node is unreachable from some of the authority servers,
> but I have no idea
> what to do about that. My ISP says that routing is fine and everything should
> work as
> expected. I don't understand why the node stays listed for a few hours before
24 matches
Mail list logo
