I don't think that niftybunnys reply was that rude, but it could be more
efficient.
Anyway i wouldn't say this has anything to do with to big to fail,
Tobias Westerhever did a really poor job at researching and did not ask
anything, instead started speculating random stuff, this is what I woul
Hi,
the IPv6 of DB00AF98D21464157AF37BE071F858C56F5220F3 is not reachable
while the IPv6 of DA61DDB384AA2242A1349C1BD97C970E33EE8CD6 is reachable
On 8/3/2018 4:08 PM, nusenu wrote:
Ralph Seichter:
Folks,
I can't figure out why Relay Search is listing the FreeBSD Tor exit node
with fingerpr
On 28.11.2016 00:01, teor wrote:
(I've rearranged your threads for clarity, please bottom-post in future.)
On Nov 27, 2016 11:59 AM, "root" mailto:t...@afo-tm.org>>
wrote:
It is end 2016 we should change from must have IPv4 to must have
IPv6 and can have IPv4.
have just IPV6, and *can* have IPV4.
On Nov 27, 2016 11:59 AM, "root" <mailto:t...@afo-tm.org>> wrote:
It is end 2016 we should change from must have IPv4 to must have
IPv6 and can have IPv4. All this new fancy ISPs that have FTTH and
give you 500 MBit/s symme
It is end 2016 we should change from must have IPv4 to must have IPv6
and can have IPv4. All this new fancy ISPs that have FTTH and give you
500 MBit/s symmetric internet access have Carrier grade NAT because they
were late to the Party and don't get IPv4 from the LIRs.
You can't run there a rel
AFAIK Tor is on the way to get working multithreading, so if this is
done you should be able to saturate a 10 gig pipe with some of the
bigger cpus. Does somebody know if there is some schedule in what
timespan Tor will get there?
Thomas White:
> Having discussed this with my partner earlier today
