-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I do wonder about a log message which seems not to appear before :
==> /tmp/notice.log <==
Nov 26 20:10:45.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done.
Nov 26 20:19:44.000 [notice] New control connection opened from 127.0.0.1.
Nov 26 20:31:13
> On 27 Nov. 2016, at 20:09, Toralf Förster wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I do wonder about a log message which seems not to appear before :
>
> ==> /tmp/notice.log <==
> Nov 26 20:10:45.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done.
> Nov 26 20:19:44.00
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/27/2016 10:16 AM, teor wrote:
> Perhaps your relay sent a lot of very small packets?
> (Interactive protocols like chat and SSH could be responsible.)
Hhm,
it is a very fresh exit (setup yesterday evening) - so that might be the reason.
(My
Ah, the unfathomable depths of human stupidity never cease to amaze.
fr33d0m4all, you did the right thing. In the absence of negative
reinforcement, the persons responsible will continue thinking they are
doing the right and sensible thing. Of course, the pessimistic
standpoint is that words never
Hi,
Apart from the problem of non-exit relays, I also think there is a
problem with blocking users from exit nodes.
Anyway, whatever the point of view is about Exit Nodes blocking, it's
sure that blocking entry and middle nodes is not useful, it's the
signature of either something that is mi
It is end 2016 we should change from must have IPv4 to must have IPv6
and can have IPv4. All this new fancy ISPs that have FTTH and give you
500 MBit/s symmetric internet access have Carrier grade NAT because they
were late to the Party and don't get IPv4 from the LIRs.
You can't run there a rel
If that happens, many people won't be able to run a middle relay at home.
Nobody in my neighborhood has an IPV6 address, and none of the WiFi spots
in town have one either.
IPV6 just isn't used wisely enough. If any change happens, it should be
*can* have just IPV6, and *can* have IPV4.
On Nov 27
I can't find any ISP in the Consensus that doesn't have IPv6 and more
than 0,1% Consensus Weight, also one Relay at a FTTH ISP that offer 200+
MBit/s symmetric and only public IPv6 would gain more Consensus Weight
than all Relays we would have lost due to that change together.
On 27.11.2016 1
(I've rearranged your threads for clarity, please bottom-post in future.)
>> On Nov 27, 2016 11:59 AM, "root" mailto:t...@afo-tm.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>It is end 2016 we should change from must have IPv4 to must have
>>IPv6 and can have IPv4.
When the proportion of Tor relays with IPv6 is
