* Tor at 1AEO via tor-relays: > A few clarifications, grounded in Tor Project guidance: [...] > > - Tor’s community resources note that relay operators should “try to > avoid the following hosters,” listing Hetzner, based on documented > operational friction reported by relay operators > https://community.torproject.org/relay/community-resources/good-bad-isps/
That's misleading at best. The reason Hetzner is named as one of a few ISPs to possibly avoid, and which you chose not to quote, is this: For network diversity and stronger anonymity, you should avoid providers and countries that already attract a lot of Tor capacity. [...] These hosts already have many Tor nodes being hosted there. I have hosted Tor relays on Hetzner for many years, am still doing so now, and I did not experience "operational friction". On the contrary. Hetzner are in fact Tor-friendly. Even their legal department told me that running Tor nodes is fine as long as they don't negatively impact Hetzner's infrastructure. The main problem is that >100 IPv4 addresses in *your* single /24 network have been unreachable several times during 2025. Hetzner's automated tools interpret connection attempts to so many hosts in a /24 in a short timeframe (originating from a given Hetzner based Tor node) as a possible network scan, which is fair enough. That's just erring on the side of caution, and they are notifying their own customers of a non-standard traffic pattern. I am positive that if you split your nodes across a more varied IPv4 address space, false alerts could be mitigated. I do appreciate what you do for the Tor network, but please don't attempt to throw shade on Hetzner. They are simply trying to run a responsible hosting business. -Ralph _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
