Re: [tor-relays] known issues with deb.torproject.org repos?

2021-11-01 Thread nusenu




David Goulet:

On 29 Oct (00:51:15), nusenu wrote:

Hi,


are there known issues with the nightly master debian package builds?
https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/


Not to our knowledge?


I'm using nightly-master in ansible-relayor CI runs
and noticed the version says currently [1]

0.4.7.1-alpha-dev-20210921T011045Z-1~d11.bullseye+1

[1] 
https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/tor-nightly-master-bullseye/main/binary-amd64/Packages

which suggests it is not the current content from
https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/ 's main branch.

Was there a change in the tor repo around that timestamp 20210921?
branch renamed?

kind regards,
nusenu


--
https://nusenu.github.io
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


Re: [tor-relays] known issues with deb.torproject.org repos?

2021-11-01 Thread David Goulet
On 29 Oct (00:51:15), nusenu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> are there known issues with the nightly master debian package builds?
> https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/

Not to our knowledge?

> 
> and a related question:
> Will the stable packages remain on the 0.4.5.x LTS branch until
> the next LTS branch or will it at some point move to the latest stable again? 
> (as it used to be)
> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/team/-/wikis/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases#current

Usually, Tor latest stable is the Debian unstable version except in some
circumstances that is when Debian is in freeze for instance.

So ultimately, that stable should become 0.4.6.x at some point, can't tell you
exactly when, that depends on our Debian packager.

Cheers!
David

-- 
eCVYxw3Iqh/9/IgYu/jMmS7iZf2Wky+ZIob+SBM/7/o=


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


Re: [tor-relays] Relay MIGHTYWANG consensus issues and loss of STABLE flag

2021-11-01 Thread Mighty Wang

Hi Eddie

Yes I saw your post on the day it happened and guessed that we are 
suffering from exactly the same issue that started at exactly the same 
time.


I couldn't correlate the loss of stable flag with anything in recent Tor 
server releases but I am going to recheck those; I am currently working 
my way back through the consensus voting lists in the run-up to the 14th 
October to try and understand where the problem started,


I'll report back here.

thanks


W



On 29/10/21 18:57, Eddie wrote:
Welcome to the club: 
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/team/-/issues/128


Since Georg opened that (on my behalf) I too have lost the Stable flag.

Cheers.


On 10/29/2021 9:10 AM, Mighty Wang wrote:


Hello fellow operators


I have one pretty large relay, MIGHTYWANG which is an IP4/6 guard, 
dedicated hardware running on a 1Gb line uncontended. It is usually 
one of the top 5 relays by consensus weight but on the morning of 
14th October it lost Guard status on account of losing the stable flag.


I checked logs, connectivity and server health - nothing unusual, 
everything is generally pretty bullet proof in and around the relay 
and it had been running for well over a year without a reboot - just 
the very occasional Tor daemon restart following upgrades but no such 
activity prior to the 14th.


So next I checked the consensus and I see that around half of the 
directory authorities seem to be not assigning the stable flag. See 
attached screenshot showing current consensus.


The peering to each of those relays seems OK from what I can see (IP4 
and IP6) so any idea what gives?


I've got a MIGHTYWANG sitting here twiddling it's thumbs because have 
the directory authorities don't want to use it. Bit of a waste.


I had similar things happen a few years ago with one of my old 
relays; again no obvious reason, just seemed to be the a random whim 
of the directory authorities.


I've noticed a couple of other long term relays are in a similar 
position - is this some time of attack, deliberate action or just Tor 
magic?



Wang


--
MIGHTYWANG 9B2BC7EFD661072AFADC533BE8DCF1C19D8C2DCC

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays




___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


--
MIGHTYWANG 9B2BC7EFD661072AFADC533BE8DCF1C19D8C2DCC

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays


Re: [tor-relays] Relay MIGHTYWANG consensus issues and loss of STABLE flag

2021-11-01 Thread Mighty Wang

Thanks Sebastian


On 29/10/21 19:04, Sebastian Hahn wrote:

Hi Wang,


On 29. Oct 2021, at 18:10, Mighty Wang  wrote:

I have one pretty large relay, MIGHTYWANG which is an IP4/6 guard, dedicated 
hardware running on a 1Gb line uncontended. It is usually one of the top 5 
relays by consensus weight but on the morning of 14th October it lost Guard 
status on account of losing the stable flag.

I checked logs, connectivity and server health - nothing unusual, everything is 
generally pretty bullet proof in and around the relay and it had been running 
for well over a year without a reboot - just the very occasional Tor daemon 
restart following upgrades but no such activity prior to the 14th.

So next I checked the consensus and I see that around half of the directory 
authorities seem to be not assigning the stable flag. See attached screenshot 
showing current consensus.

The peering to each of those relays seems OK from what I can see (IP4 and IP6) 
so any idea what gives?

I've got a MIGHTYWANG sitting here twiddling it's thumbs because have the 
directory authorities don't want to use it. Bit of a waste.

I had similar things happen a few years ago with one of my old relays; again no 
obvious reason, just seemed to be the a random whim of the directory 
authorities.

I've noticed a couple of other long term relays are in a similar position - is 
this some time of attack, deliberate action or just Tor magic?



Wang

I operate gabelmoo and your relay seems to be unreachable via IPv6 from here. 
Here's a traceroute:

traceroute to 2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef:: (2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef::), 
30 hops max, 80 byte packets
  1  informatik.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000:4140::1)  1.966 ms  2.037 
ms  2.214 ms
  2  constellation.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3341:33)  0.718 ms  
0.770 ms  0.831 ms
  3  yamato.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3033:30)  0.829 ms  1.122 ms  
1.234 ms
  4  * * *
  5  * * *
  6  * * *
  7  ffm-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:6b::1)  19.795 ms  19.786 ms  
19.779 ms
  8  prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1)  20.489 ms 
prs-bb2-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:c1::1)  20.931 ms 
prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1)  20.509 ms
  9  ldn-bb4-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7b::1)  19.517 ms 
ldn-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7a::1)  19.390 ms  19.334 ms
10  * * *
11  vaioni-ic326121-ldn-b2.ip.twelve99-cust.net (2001:2000:3080:937::2)  20.387 
ms  19.464 ms  20.446 ms
12  2a02:29d0:0:1:: (2a02:29d0:0:1::)  39.577 ms  39.414 ms  39.363 ms
13  2a02:29d0:3:1003::1 (2a02:29d0:3:1003::1)  20.520 ms  20.514 ms *
14  * * *
15  * * *
16  * * *
17  * * *
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

Perhaps this helps analyze the problem?

Cheers
Sebastian


Strangely your relay gabelmoo  is one of the relays I checked IP4/IP6 
connectivity to and I can hit your IP6 OK from MIGHTYWANG so there is a 
route,


traceroute to 2001:638:a000:4140:::189 
(2001:638:a000:4140:::189), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets

 1  beijing.dsd-labs.com (2a02:29d0:8008::1)  0.091 ms  0.076 ms 0.088 ms
 2  2a02:29d0:3:1003:: (2a02:29d0:3:1003::)  1.367 ms  1.378 ms 1.364 ms
 3  2a02:29d0:0:1::1 (2a02:29d0:0:1::1)  1.487 ms  1.443 ms  1.458 ms
 4  * * *
 5  ldn-bb4-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7b::1)  1.839 ms 
ldn-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:7a::1)  17.684 ms  17.402 ms
 6  prs-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:be::1)  17.454 ms 
prs-bb2-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:c1::1)  18.639 ms  18.623 ms
 7  ffm-bb1-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:6b::1)  18.859 ms 17.696 ms 
ffm-bb2-v6.ip.twelve99.net (2001:2034:1:6c::1)  18.092 ms
 8  kr-erl156-0.x-win.dfn.de (2001:638:c:a039::2)  21.150 ms 20.963 ms  
21.541 ms
 9  constellation.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3033:33) 21.509 
ms  21.291 ms  22.232 ms
10  * informatik.gate.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000::3341:41) 20.767 
ms  21.339 ms
11  despari.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (2001:638:a000:4140:::189)  
21.215 ms  20.971 ms  20.725 ms


I think your UDP based traceroute is hitting my firewall and getting 
dropped but you do have  a route to me - in fact your relay has a long 
term active connection to mine via IP6 right now:


tcp6   0  0 2a02:29d0:8008:c0de:bad:beef:::443 
2001:638:a000:4140:::189:41011  ESTABLISHED


So it isn't an IP6 issue from what I can see (although that was an issue 
about 18 months ago as a result of some temporary peering issues).


I checked all the DA relays on IP6 and IP4 and all have active 
connections to me via IP6 (where they support it) or IP4 so if it is a 
connectivity issue it must be transient and so far undetectable.


There is something else happening here but I don't know what yet.

thanks

Wang


___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org