The 500 Mbps instance would either be one of my private servers in my co-lo, or
a dedicated server in one of my private cloud hosting locations. With both
contacts, bandwidth costs aren’t an issue, but if one big instance would work I
would put it on the same hardware that I am running a server
Hi,
I facilitated the meetup at FOSDEM, last Sunday, and I wanted to report
back on what happened, and what worked (or did not).
We had around 20 people, with relatively little overlap with the 34C3 meetup (I
could be wrong, though, as I'm bad at recognising faces). This seems quite good,
esp. co
> Content-wise, there were some pretty fruitful discussion, but we spent quite
> a bit
> of time on questions that recurr at other meetups too:
>
> - What's the most useful thing I can bring to the network?
> (TL;DR: Ideally, fast relays (if possible exits); if you can't contribute
> more tha
>> - What's the most useful thing I can bring to the network?
added to the FAQ (pending review)
>> - Why doesn't Tor support IPv6 yet?
added to the FAQ (pending review)
> I'm planing to go over the relay section of the FAQ on www.tpo and provide a
> branch for review,
> do you have commit priv
>
> Yep, changing provider is 98% complete. I have a new instance running at
> online.net since last night:
>
> The new instances is running well:
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/45A9735BE83ECE864B23621B8D266E6A1AEA96F6
I like being able to enable IPv6 as well.
Q
--
01011001010101001
This is why I chose to run multiple 100 Mhz nodes. I over-advertise the
capacity, so that some of them get a bit more traffic than they really should,
because the bwauths under-measure NA relays and, worse, keep changing their
measurements for no apparent reason. On the same bare metal box one r
> so on that day I guess dir auths updated to the version enforcing
> 80+443 for exit flag
to confirm this:
Dir Auth Tor versions as of 2018-01-19 13:00
+---++
| tor_version | nickname |
+---++
| 0.3.1.9 | dannenberg |
| 0
> Possible advantages are:
> - Relay Search would support searching for bridges by contact information.
> - People who keep a watching eye on the Tor network could reach out to
> bridge operators to inform them that they're running an outdated tor/PT
> version, or that running bridges and exits t
The thing is, someone should scan all relays and inform them that their exit
flag is gone. We need every exit we can get.
> On 11. Feb 2018, at 00:37, nusenu wrote:
>
>
>> so on that day I guess dir auths updated to the version enforcing
>> 80+443 for exit flag
>
>
>
Dear Tor Exit Operator,
I'm sending you this email to inform you that
on 2018-01-20 the requirements for exit operators changed.
Since that date your exit policy MUST allow exiting to port 80 _and_ 443
to be eligible for the exit flag.
If your exit policy does not meet these new requirements,
niftybunny:
> The thing is, someone should scan all relays and inform them that their exit
> flag is gone. We need every exit we can get.
thank you for your input - I sent out that other email to address it (luckily
we do not need to scan
to gather that kind of data).
So back to my question:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:37:00PM +, nusenu wrote:
> | 0.3.1.9 | Bifroest |
> | 0.3.2.9 | bastet | bridge dirauth
Careful, it's Bifroest that's the bridge auth. bastet is just a normal
v3 auth.
> I'm curious:
> Why did this change come into effect after only 3/9 hav
12 matches
Mail list logo
