[tor-relays] Alleged Family Members / Stable flag "issues"

n't find the "right thing" to do here. Thanks! -- Yours Sincerely / Met Vriendelijke groet, Stijn Jonker 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] Alleged Family Members / Stable flag "issues"

but it kind of feels like stale data somewhere. If it's not on my side then I'm sure it will correct at some point in time. thx, Stijn -- Yours Sincerely / Met Vriendelijke groet, Stijn Jonker sjcjon...@sjc.nl ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-rel

Re: [tor-relays] Alleged Family Members / Stable flag "issues"

Hi Teor, Thanks for responding: On 14 Dec 2017, at 22:56, teor wrote: > On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:38, Stijn Jonker wrote: For a little short of a year I'm running Relay SJC01 (328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192), there was some unnoticed outage of the relay which caused a cou

Re: [tor-relays] botnet? abusing/attacking guard nodes

have some protections, to the extend possible, with the current protocol. For instance dropping clients (source IP's) that frequently connect but are not behaving. I understand this might have it's implications when under censorship/censorship countermeasures. -- Yours Sincerel

Re: [tor-relays] Recent wave of abuse on Tor guards

All, Just adding 0.02c; from the hosts going above 24 connections (my FW limit), the ASN's involved seem to focus on: 5 LEASEWEB-USA-WDC-01 - Leaseweb USA, Inc., US 18 OVH, FR 25 LEASEWEB-NL-AMS-01 Netherlands, NL That's 48 from the 72 IP's exhibiting this behaviour. Whereby the lea

[tor-relays] Can it be done? - IPv6 only Relay

Hi tor geniuses, Having some bandwidth to spare, and "some" IPv6 addresses but no IPv4. I decided to setup an IPv6 only relay, and for diversity on OpenBSD, but I'm having trouble getting online. Is there any feasible way to do this as IPv6 only relay? [root@tornode2 tor]# grep -v -e ^$ -e ^# /

Re: [tor-relays] Can it be done? - IPv6 only Relay

ted it with cached-* files from an other tor instance, otherwise it was stuck at 0% Thx again On 25 Dec 2017, at 11:07, Stijn Jonker wrote: > Hi tor geniuses, > > Having some bandwidth to spare, and "some" IPv6 addresses but no IPv4. I > decided to setup an IPv6 only relay,

Re: [tor-relays] Can it be done? - IPv6 only Relay

rojects/tor/ticket/5788> -- 4096R/A83CE748 > Valters Jansons > > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 12:52 nusenu wrote: >> >> >> Stijn Jonker: >> > Hi tor geniuses, >> > >> > Having some bandwidth to spare, and "some" IPv6 addresses but no >>

Re: [tor-relays] Can it be done? - IPv6 only Relay

t is still to take place.> > -- 4096R/A83CE748 Valters Jansons > > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 2:38 PM Stijn Jonker wrote:>> __ >> Hi Nusenu/Valters, >> >> Thanks for the reply and links; what isn’t entirely clear is the >> following scenario. What if I provide

[tor-relays] Q about: The IPv4 ORPort address does not match the descriptor address

Hi All, As a follow-up to the thread, "Can it be done? - IPv6 only Relay" I linked the new OpenBSD Relay via an IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel to the other relay I operate. So there is: SJC01 / 328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192 and now SJC02 / 366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E Both share th

Re: [tor-relays] Q about: The IPv4 ORPort address does not match the descriptor address

Hi "Tor", Ehmm.. On 27 Dec 2017, at 21:07, tor wrote: > I think you just have a typo here: > >> ORPort 80.127.177.180:993 NoListen > > 177 instead of 117 for the third octet. Duh... .. Thx! S___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

[tor-relays] Tor 0.3.2.9 Linux - first period fine, since today lots of: Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests!

Hi All, Is this a "known" issue, my non-exit relay has been running for over a year, and although with the recent issues (attack / network issue or the likes) with some ipfilter kunfu it managed to get through the storm pretty well. Now all of a sudden since early today my logs are flooded wi

[tor-relays] Attack or issue? 4 / 11 M of traffic

Hi All, Since around midnight CET, my relay who was happily running almost the same amount of traffic in and outbound, has dropped to 4 Meg in, 11 Meg out according to SNMP on the host. (Cap: 10M/peak 12.5M). Lots of messages like: - Channel padding timeout scheduled 304317ms in the past. - You

[tor-relays] nyx question on info on top right side, present on CentOS, missing on Debian.

Hi All, I initially went to the nyx website to find the right forum to ask questions. I understood this is the one :-), if not apologies. So I'm running two relays, one is running on CentOS7, the other Debian Stretch. On both I have nyx (2.0.4) installed. The "Debian" one is missing the CPU,

Re: [tor-relays] nyx question on info on top right side, present on CentOS, missing on Debian.

Hi Damian, On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Stijn Jonker wrote: Hi All, So I'm running two relays, one is running on CentOS7, the other Debian Stretch. On both I have nyx (2.0.4) installed. The "Debian" one is missing the CPU, Exit policy etc info. It's not tor ve

Re: [tor-relays] nyx question on info on top right side, present on CentOS, missing on Debian.

Hi Stain, On 4 Feb 2018, at 14:56, Stian Fauskanger wrote: Hi Stijn, So I'm running two relays, one is running on CentOS7, the other Debian Stretch. On both I have nyx (2.0.4) installed. The "Debian" one is missing the CPU, Exit policy etc info. It's not tor version specific, as I recently

Re: [tor-relays] - Feedback expected? - Experimental DoS mitigation is in tor master

Hi all, Not sure where to hook into the discussion, apologies of offending anyone spanning of a new thread from this first message. On 31 Jan 2018, at 10:16, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Hi folks, > > Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues. > > We've merged https://bugs.torproject

[tor-relays] 1 circuit using 1.5Gig or ram? [0.3.3.2-alpha]

Hi all, So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot more robust against the recent increase in clients (or possible [D]DoS). But tonight for a short period of time one of the relays was running

Re: [tor-relays] 1 circuit using 1.5Gig or ram? [0.3.3.2-alpha]

Hi Tor & Others, On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:29, tor wrote: I see this occasionally. It's not specific to 0.3.3.x. I reported it back in October 2017: Thx, I more or less added the version in the subject to clearly indicate it was on an alpha release https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-r

Re: [tor-relays] 1 circuit using 1.5Gig or ram? [0.3.3.2-alpha]

Hi David, On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:44, David Goulet wrote: > On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes >> without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote: > Hi, > > Roger Dingledine: >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote: > >>> if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this >>> might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. >>> >>> If you

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)

Hi Teor & Others, Thanks for your response, On 2 Mar 2018, at 23:26, teor wrote: > > On 3 Mar 2018, at 02:15, Stijn Jonker wrote: >> >> On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Roger Dingledine: >> >> On Tue, Feb 27, 20

[tor-relays] Shutdown relay 366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E, upcoming shutdown 328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192

Dear all, This is to announce that with immediate effect I have shutdown relay sjc02/366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E and will do so in about a year and half with sjc01/328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192 as it's a fallback directory. Thanks for all the support on the mailing list