Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 18 Jan 2016, at 11:07, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:16:40 +1100 > Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: > >> I think if a client is just using it for bootstrap, any extra latency >> shouldn't be an issue. >> But IPv6 clients may also pick it as a guard, so that should be take

Re: [tor-relays] Revised Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> kitten3 doesn't have a DirPort configured. Relays need a DirPort to be a > fallback directory mirror. Let me know if you are able to configure a > DirPort for it. > > Also let me know if you want to opt-in or opt-out other relays in that > family. Thanks for the report, corrected ! For others

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:16:40 +1100 Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: > I think if a client is just using it for bootstrap, any extra latency > shouldn't be an issue. > But IPv6 clients may also pick it as a guard, so that should be taken into > account. > > Should we be running relays over IPv6 t

Re: [tor-relays] Revised Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 13 Jan 2016, at 02:56, Aeris wrote: > >> Here's the latest list of fallback directory candidates: >> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/attachment/ticket/15775/fallback_di >> rs.inc.20160112 > > ... > (I already opt-in for it inclusion on december, with my others nodes > (kitten[1-4]

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 19 Dec 2015, at 05:53, Felix wrote: > ... > I'm happy to bring in the relay Doedel22 > '8FA37B93397015B2BC5A525C908485260BE9F422'. Hi Felix, There are some other relays in that family, did you want to opt-in or opt-out for them? Tim Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PG

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 09:23, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: >> On 18 Dec 2015, at 06:31, ]V[ > > wrote: >> Able! >> > > ... > Thanks, can you let me/us know the names your relay(s)? > (I need to know the names to add them to the opt-in list.) Hi Martjin, I could no

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 06:03, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: > > Relay 'Binnacle' experienced outages due to a > loose fiber-option junction in the overhead > wires that has been repaired. I believe > it would make the list if not for this > and do not foresee further trouble. > ... > Availab

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 04:49, Pascal Terjan wrote: > On 17 December 2015 at 14:07, Nick Mathewson > wrote: > For the initial fallback release, we will only add your relay if you > opt in. Please reply on the tor-relays mailing list, if you are able. > (Opt-ins, opt-out

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 04:43, t...@use.startmail.com wrote: > > Not on the list of candidate fallbacks i still offering my family: > $4B9E2C56FB42B891794FE2CD2FCAD08A320CC3BB,$BEE2317AE127EB681C5AE1551C1EA0630580638A,$F6279A203C1950ACF592322A235647A05BFBCF91,$5BFDECCE9B4A23AE14EC767C5A2C1E10558B00

Re: [tor-relays] Do less-secure pluggable transports on bridges render more-secure types useless?

So far, the GFW blocks the bridges it discovers by IP:port. Therefore, you can run two bridges on your machine and if one gets discovered, the other one should still be reachable. Of course, that could change any moment. Wow, that's a pretty huge and inexplicable oversight on their part. Hard

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

> On 18 Jan 2016, at 03:05, Thom Wiggers wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to opt in for this trail, > > My relay is: > > tornoderdednl CBEFF7BA4A4062045133C053F2D70524D8BBE5BE on 178.62.199.226 / > [2a03:b0c0:2:d0::b7:5001]. > > (Will you also be including IPv6 addresses?) Hi Thom, The

Re: [tor-relays] Tor being blocked by mayor ISP in Mexico?

> On 16 Jan 2016, at 09:08, Test This wrote: > > My Relay, the Tor Browser and Fire.Onion have a higher possibility to get > stuck while bootstrapping at 0, 5, 20%. Once passed the 50~60% it get faster. > My assumption is that my ISP is blocking or at least randomly dropping > packets to and f

Re: [tor-relays] Do less-secure pluggable transports on bridges render more-secure types useless?

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:34:48AM -0800, Rick Huebner wrote: > I can't imagine the GFW would be so kind as to only block the ORport's > specific port number, I assume it blocks the entire bridge IP address, > making all transports useless if any single one of them is detected. Would > it be better

[tor-relays] Do less-secure pluggable transports on bridges render more-secure types useless?

I've read that obfs4 and scramblesuit are very resistant ("immune" is so optimistic) to such things as active probes performed by the Great Firewall, which can quickly probe and detect older transports (and of course vanilla ORports), plus the older transports and ORports are subject to relativ

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors

Hi all, I would like to opt in for this trail, My relay is: tornoderdednl CBEFF7BA4A4062045133C053F2D70524D8BBE5BE on 178.62.199.226 / [2a03:b0c0:2:d0::b7:5001]. (Will you also be including IPv6 addresses?) Best regards, Thom On 12/01/16 14:07, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote: > >> On 12 Jan