Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-02-05 Thread Karsten Loesing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [Removing metrics-team@ to avoid cross posting.] On 28/01/16 21:22, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: > >> On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:20, Roman Mamedov wrote: >> >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor >>

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-02-05 Thread Virgil Griffith
I withdraw my desire this proposal. In Roster we wouldn't want these /16 network families---we just wanted to collapse some relays together when we reliably believe they have the same operator, and there's no reason to believe the majority of relays within a /16 are owned by the same person.

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-02-05 Thread Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
> On 5 Feb 2016, at 21:28, Virgil Griffith wrote: > > I withdraw my desire this proposal. In Roster we wouldn't want these /16 > network families---we just wanted to collapse some relays together when we > reliably believe they have the same operator, and there's no reason to >

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-28 Thread Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
> On 27 Jan 2016, at 18:19, grarpamp wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith wrote: >> No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this >> issue. I can go either way. > > Same IP excepting NAT is same box, kind of

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-28 Thread Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
> On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:20, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 > Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: > >> Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family. > > Maybe a step further in this would be to

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-28 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:33:51 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: > Tor already considers relays in the same IPv4 /16 to be in the same family. Maybe a step further in this would be to autoextend manually declared families with all relays running on the same IPs of any

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-26 Thread Virgil Griffith
They are indeed configured in torrc. The question is whether two relays on the same IP# *should* be in the same family even if they aren't. -V On Wednesday, 27 January 2016, Tristan wrote: > Aren't family members configured in torrc? > On Jan 26, 2016 11:01 PM,

[tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-26 Thread Virgil Griffith
For example, these two pairs of relays that came online yesterday: * https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0ED2D734F295427E5A3719FA7B9985C335839123 * https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/667C297D3EC6E1281D68F7F4C8C9BE8324D132A3 and *

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-26 Thread grarpamp
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Virgil Griffith wrote: > No wrong answer---just wondering what is the community's vibe on this > issue. I can go either way. Same IP excepting NAT is same box, kind of pointless if they're not the same entity [1], err to caution and call it

Re: [tor-relays] Should Onionoo consider relays with the same ip# to be part of the same family?

2016-01-26 Thread Tristan
Aren't family members configured in torrc? On Jan 26, 2016 11:01 PM, "Virgil Griffith" wrote: > For example, these two pairs of relays that came online yesterday: > * > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/0ED2D734F295427E5A3719FA7B9985C335839123 > > * >