-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello Yawning,
We need to confirm this: is a relay holding TLS connections to the majority of the other relays? On a relay with over 100 days of uptime (middle relay) Stable, HSDir, etc. I have (# netstat -a | wc -l) 1942 connections. Another one, with less uptime just has 548 connections. These relays have a small consensus weight. A guard with good consensus weight has much more, but anyway under the ~6400 (total number of relays in the consensus). On 7/26/2015 7:48 PM, Yawning Angel wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:11:56 +0200 nusenu <nus...@openmailbox.org> > wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 >> >> [split from 'Giving away some "pre-warmed" relay keys for >> adoption'] > > Ok. > >>> I'm of the opinion that it may be worth adding code to pin >>> relay identities to IP addresses on the DirAuth side so that >>> consensus weight and flag assignment gets totally reset if the >>> ORPort IP changes, but if there's too much churn already it may >>> cause more trouble than it's worth. >> >> I hope such code will not be added, because it renders relays on >> dynamic IPs basically useless. In the past ~week only there were >> >1000 fingerprints (<3% cw fraction) using more than one IP >> address (in that timeframe) > > Hey neat, numbers, thanks. <3% cw doesn't seem that bad. > > I will reiterate that such a thing only will become viable once > the bandwidth measurement stuff sees massive improvement (and it is > being worked on), so this isn't a short term thing, and is just an > idea. > > I question the usefulness of most of the relays running on > residential lines in the first place for other reasons (Eg: most > consumer routers are crap, and will probably not be able to > simultaneously maintain a connection to every single other relay + > bridge, which is rather unhealthy to the network overall. Being > able to measure this and delist/reduce consensus weight here would > be good as well.). > > If the relay's IP is constantly changing significantly faster than > the Guard rotation interval (needs more numbers here), I'm not sure > if they make great Guards, but this is an arma/asn type question > since they think more about Guards than I do. > > Under a Tor that has the sort of pinning behavior I envision, a > relay that changes an IP once in a blue moon still remains useful, > a relay that changes an IP frequently (for some definition of > frequently) will be used as a middle only (which is still useful). > > Regards, > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVtSJJAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRykoH/2RlWBnvgg2/Ecux3BCOEH7d UgpmBufoX5/g2wqNkixNhSVPICCbSnzie5HuIcSjZXUZ1B7YZPU86xgZPKFRm5pn lMzgfsoUUYsOwz9PluRC0Og5YbssUIpB71jOhOaCO+RxvX034s4FVZbd++ByH1qi rXzV+d6KRaQAB6+Togo+qHy8NTQJqoGpw8y4ikJa96puyJD95AAjs2KBwaqOUsGD A4IGNSsEUbfRfkZURDqecasQnQPsHtH3OBlnv2/pKmlp5DuxSQJNSrqqpqDRa8su XGtXZkYd7tqCCE6EJRau4MUaiRV5CvQImcYEmyyNSMmiPSXKwvaA7cpiYjJMga8= =UCjN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays