Mike- On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Mike Perry <mikepe...@torproject.org> wrote: > Lunar: >> Chris Sheats: >> > Hey tor-relays, >> > >> > The past few months, since I upgraded my net connection to 1Gbps, I've >> > hit the top 40 fastest relays and the top 20 fastest exit nodes, >> > peaking to over 17 MB/s. I've always prided the fact that my ISP, >> > CondoInternet in Seattle, has been very welcoming of my reduced exit >> > node. In the past, the malicious activity hasn't been "too much" for >> > my ISP--examples here: http://yawnbox.com/1461--but now they want me >> > to shut it down. What are my options? > > By "reduced", were you using the ReducedExitPolicy? This would eliminate > the bittorrent complaints. It sounds like you were, but I wanted to > confirm (and your node is no longer in the consensus :/). > > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ReducedExitPolicy
Yes, I followed the ReducedExitPolicy exactly. In a follow-up email response, I informed my ISP that I stopped my Tor service on this node, and they mentioned two things: BitTorrent-legal complaints, and HTTP/S SQL injections. > >> Is their problem the amount of work they have to do because of the abuse >> and legal complaints? Then offer to handle them directly. >> >> The best way to do so is to become the contact address for the IP. With >> your Regional Internet Registry, the process is usually called SWIP [1]. >> The issue you might run into is that SWIP is only available for a >> minimum of 8 IPv4 addresses. So they might charge you more and you might >> have to switch to a new IP address. >> >> You probably should switch to a non-exit policy while negociating. If >> you and CondoInternet are not able to find a process where you could >> handle abuses directly, fast non-exit relays with good bandwidth are >> still a very useful contribution to the network! (and they would not get >> any legal complaints) > > Yes, I want to emphasize the value of being a high capacity non-exit > relay. I want to investigate various types of padding for Website > Traffic Fingerprinting and correlation, and I think that if we end up > having more Guard bandwidth than Exit bandwidth, we can write parameters > into the consensus that instruct clients to use this extra capacity for > padding: > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7028 > > Did they shut you down entirely, even forbidding non-exit for some > reason? Or did you decide to move to a new ISP that supports exits? I turned Tor off voluntarily, and have been planning on reconfiguring my node for relay-only traffic. In previous correspondence, I asked if there were any other Tor Exit's on their network, and they said no. So this isn't a good precedent for TorProject/Seattle volunteers considering that they provide 100 and 1000 Mbps service. > > > -- > Mike Perry > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > -- Chris Sheats yawn...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
