Hi, So yes I had obfs4 installed. I accidentally set it to the same port as tor without relazing, silly me. Here is my new torrc:
Nickname gbridge ORPort 8080 SocksPort 0 BridgeRelay 1 PublishServerDescriptor bridge BridgeDistribution email ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:8081 ExtOrPort auto Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log ExitPolicy reject *:* AccountingMax 50 GB ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom I am wanting to limit to 50GB per month to avoid being overcharged. Would this do that? Thanks. --Keifer On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 4:43 AM gus <g...@torproject.org> wrote: > Hi Keifer, > > You can't use the same port. > > Here is a simple example: > > BridgeRelay 1 > ORPort 56331 > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:53333 > ExtORPort auto > ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom > Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log > BridgeDistribution email > Nickname gbridge > AccountingStart day 12:00 > AccountingMax 50 GB > > > Example: Let's say you want to allow 50 GB of traffic every day in each > direction and the accounting should reset at noon each day: > > For more details about AccountinMax, see this Support doc: > https://support.torproject.org/relay-operators/limit-total-bandwidth/ > > Did you also install obfs4proxy package? Because on Metrics it says > that your bridge don't have any 'transport protocol'. > > cheers, > Gus > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 08:23:44AM -0800, Keifer Bly wrote: > > Ok, changed to port 8080 and upped my allowed traffic a bit: > > > > GNU nano 3.2 > > /etc/tor/torrc > > > > > > Nickname gbridge > > ORPort 8080 > > SocksPort 0 > > BridgeRelay 1 > > PublishServerDescriptor bridge > > BridgeDistribution email > > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy > > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:8080 > > ExtOrPort auto > > Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log > > ExitPolicy reject *:* > > AccountingMax 50 GB > > ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom > > > > Yes, I have limited bandwidth I can give so as to avoid being > > massively charged for traffic. Perhaps there is a way to set tor to only > > allow traffic with a small connection? Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Keifer > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 1:29 AM trinity pointard < > trinity.point...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > And the reason why it's on port 443 is so as to be on a port that's > not > > > likely blocked by network administrators. > > > > > > That might be useful for the ORPort of a relay, and for the obfs4 port > > > of a bridge, but not for the ORPort of a bridge. Clients are not > > > supposed to connect to it. > > > The only reason it's exposed is because the bridge authority still > > > requires it to verify the bridge is reachable. See > > > https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/7349. > > > You are better of using 443 for the ServerTransportListenAddr, and > > > some high port for ORPort. > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 03:05, Keifer Bly <keifer....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, > > > > > > > > So I just changed my torrc to this: > > > > > > > > Nickname gbridge > > > > ORPort 443 > > > > SocksPort 0 > > > > BridgeRelay 1 > > > > PublishServerDescriptor bridge > > > > BridgeDistribution email > > > > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy > > > > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:8080 > > > > ExtOrPort auto > > > > Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log > > > > ExitPolicy reject *:* > > > > AccountingMax 50 GB > > > > ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom > > > > > > > > Trying to avoid being charged a huge amount for traffic as these VPS > > > providers can be ridiculous when it comes to that, which is why it was > set > > > to so little. Ran killall -HUP tor to reload it and see that happens > in the > > > next day or so. And the reason why it's on port 443 is so as to be on a > > > port that's not likely blocked by network administrators. Thank you. > > > > --Keifer > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 2:23 PM trinity pointard < > > > trinity.point...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Your torrc is correct wrt to distribution mechanism (your bridge is > > > >> indicating "bridge-distribution-request any" in the descriptor it > > > >> sends), but for the record, the line would have been > > > >> "BridgeDistribution any". > > > >> A bridge uses less bandwidth than a relay, but it's still a proxy. > At > > > >> 5GB per month, you'd be providing a steady 16kbps over the month, > or a > > > >> single mbps for little over 11 hours. That's very little, if you > can't > > > >> have more bandwidth (by using a provider with no bandwidth > accounting, > > > >> or one that gives better pricing per bandwidth), I fear your bridge > > > >> won't be very useful at all. Mine consumes between a few hundred GB > > > >> and a few TB depending on the distribution mechanism. > > > >> > > > >> Are you sure your bridge is reachable? Bridgestrap reports suggest > it > > > isn't. > > > >> As the bridge operator, you should know its bridge line. Can you > test > > > >> it with Tor Browser to make sure? > > > >> Given your accounting limits, it could be unreachable because > > > >> currently hibernating. Or you could have a firewall issue, or > > > >> something else. > > > >> I believe not passing bridgestrap can explain not being assigned a > > > >> distribution mechanism. > > > >> > > > >> It might also explain why it would be considered blocked in Russia: > if > > > >> it's not reachable from anywhere, it's not reachable from Russia. An > > > >> other possibility, given you use 443 for your ORPort, is that your > > > >> bridge was indeed detected by just scanning the whole internet. The > > > >> ORPort is very recognizable (enough that some of my former bridges > > > >> ended up tagged "tor" on Shodan) so it should be put on a port > that's > > > >> less likely to be scanned. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> trinity-1686a > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 21:29, Keifer Bly <keifer....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > Where in the torrc file would I set it to any? I am looking for a > way > > > to run a bridge without being charged a huge amount of money for it, > and I > > > was curious how it would have been detected by Russia if noone had > used the > > > bridge there? Thanks. > > > >> > --Keifer > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:45 AM <li...@for-privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Samstag, 18. Februar 2023 18:56:00 CET Keifer Bly wrote: > > > >> >> > Ok. Here is the torrc file: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > GNU nano 3.2 /etc/tor/torrc > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Nickname gbridge > > > >> >> > ORPort 443 > > > >> >> > SocksPort 0 > > > >> >> > BridgeRelay 1 > > > >> >> > PublishServerDescriptor bridge > > > >> >> > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy > > > >> >> > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:8080 > > > >> >> > ExtOrPort auto > > > >> >> > Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log > > > >> >> > ExitPolicy reject *:* > > > >> >> > AccountingMax 5 GB > > > >> >> > ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Where in this torrc file is that configured? > > > >> >> Then set it to 'any' and wait 24-48 hours to see what happens. > Maybe > > > there was > > > >> >> an error in the db. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> If your bridge is still not distributed, it could be due to the > > > outdated > > > >> >> obfs4proxy or because of 'AccountingMax 5 GB'. > > > >> >> Sorry but, 5 GB is a 'fart in the wind' the accounting period > would > > > only be a > > > >> >> few hours a month. It's not even worth distributing them because > it > > > would only > > > >> >> frustrate the users. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > And how would it be blocked in > > > >> >> > Russia already if it hasn't even been used? > > > >> >> Why should this new feature of the bridgedb, more precisely the > > > rdsys backend, > > > >> >> have anything to do with whether someone uses a bridge? This is a > > > bridgedb > > > >> >> distribution method introduced by meskio. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Debian GNU/Linux > > > >> >> > > > >> >> It's free software and it gives you > > > freedom!_______________________________________________ > > > >> >> tor-relays mailing list > > > >> >> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > > >> >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > >> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > tor-relays mailing list > > > >> > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > > >> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> tor-relays mailing list > > > >> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > tor-relays mailing list > > > > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > _______________________________________________ > > > tor-relays mailing list > > > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tor-relays mailing list > > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > -- > The Tor Project > Community Team Lead > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays