ks!
--
Yours Sincerely / Met Vriendelijke groet,
Stijn Jonker
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Hi Teor,
Thanks for responding:
On 14 Dec 2017, at 22:56, teor wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:38, Stijn Jonker <sjcjon...@sjc.nl> wrote:
For a little short of a year I'm running Relay SJC01
(328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192), there was some unnoticed
outage of the re
like stale data
somewhere. If it's not on my side then I'm sure it will correct at some
point in time.
thx,
Stijn
--
Yours Sincerely / Met Vriendelijke groet,
Stijn Jonker
sjcjon...@sjc.nl
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https
, to the extend possible, with the current protocol. For
instance dropping clients (source IP's) that frequently connect but are
not behaving. I understand this might have it's implications when under
censorship/censorship countermeasures.
--
Yours Sincerely / Met Vriendelijke groet,
Stijn Jonker
Hi All,
As a follow-up to the thread, "Can it be done? - IPv6 only Relay" I linked the
new OpenBSD Relay via an IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel to the other relay I operate.
So there is: SJC01 / 328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192 and now SJC02 /
366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E
Both share
Hi tor geniuses,
Having some bandwidth to spare, and "some" IPv6 addresses but no IPv4. I
decided to setup an IPv6 only relay, and for diversity on OpenBSD, but I'm
having trouble getting online.
Is there any feasible way to do this as IPv6 only relay?
[root@tornode2 tor]# grep -v -e ^$ -e ^#
ts/tor/ticket/5788> -- 4096R/A83CE748
> Valters Jansons
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 12:52 nusenu <nusenu-li...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Stijn Jonker:
>> > Hi tor geniuses,
>> >
>> > Having some bandwidth to spare, and "some" IP
still to take place.>
> -- 4096R/A83CE748 Valters Jansons
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 2:38 PM Stijn Jonker <sjcjon...@sjc.nl> wrote:>> __
>> Hi Nusenu/Valters,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply and links; what isn’t entirely clear is the
>> following sce
tarted it with cached-* files from an other tor
instance, otherwise it was stuck at 0%
Thx again
On 25 Dec 2017, at 11:07, Stijn Jonker wrote:
> Hi tor geniuses,
>
> Having some bandwidth to spare, and "some" IPv6 addresses but no IPv4. I
> decided to setup an IPv6 only relay,
Hi Damian,
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Stijn Jonker <sjcjon...@sjc.nl> wrote:
Hi All,
So I'm running two relays, one is running on CentOS7, the other
Debian
Stretch. On both I have nyx (2.0.4) installed. The "Debian" one is
missing
the CPU, Exit policy etc info. It's
Hi Stain,
On 4 Feb 2018, at 14:56, Stian Fauskanger wrote:
Hi Stijn,
So I'm running two relays, one is running on CentOS7, the other Debian
Stretch. On both I have nyx (2.0.4) installed. The "Debian" one is
missing the CPU, Exit policy etc info. It's not tor version specific,
as I recently
Hi All,
Since around midnight CET, my relay who was happily running almost the same
amount of traffic in and outbound, has dropped to 4 Meg in, 11 Meg out
according to SNMP on the host. (Cap: 10M/peak 12.5M).
Lots of messages like:
- Channel padding timeout scheduled 304317ms in the past.
-
Hi All,
I initially went to the nyx website to find the right forum to ask
questions. I understood this is the one :-), if not apologies.
So I'm running two relays, one is running on CentOS7, the other Debian
Stretch. On both I have nyx (2.0.4) installed. The "Debian" one is
missing the
Hi all,
So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot
more robust against the recent increase in clients (or possible [D]DoS).
But tonight for a short period of time one of the relays was running
Hi Tor & Others,
On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:29, tor wrote:
I see this occasionally. It's not specific to 0.3.3.x. I reported it
back in October 2017:
Thx, I more or less added the version in the subject to clearly indicate
it was on an alpha release
Hi David,
On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:44, David Goulet wrote:
> On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
>> without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a
Hi all,
Not sure where to hook into the discussion, apologies of offending anyone
spanning of a new thread from this first message.
On 31 Jan 2018, at 10:16, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues.
>
> We've merged
Hi "Tor",
Ehmm..
On 27 Dec 2017, at 21:07, tor wrote:
> I think you just have a typo here:
>
>> ORPort 80.127.177.180:993 NoListen
>
> 177 instead of 117 for the third octet.
Duh... ..
Thx!
S___
tor-relays mailing list
Hi All,
Is this a "known" issue, my non-exit relay has been running for over a
year, and although with the recent issues (attack / network issue or the
likes) with some ipfilter kunfu it managed to get through the storm
pretty well. Now all of a sudden since early today my logs are flooded
Hi Teor & Others,
Thanks for your response,
On 2 Mar 2018, at 23:26, teor wrote:
> > On 3 Mar 2018, at 02:15, Stijn Jonker <sjcjon...@sjc.nl> wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Roger Dingledine:
>>
Dear all,
This is to announce that with immediate effect I have shutdown relay
sjc02/366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E and will do so in about a year
and half with sjc01/328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192 as it's a fallback
directory.
Thanks for all the support on the mailing
21 matches
Mail list logo