Thanks teor
> I would recommend using a caching resolver, it puts much less load on the
> remote resolvers you are using.
Went down this path - its working.
Paul
609662E824251C283164243846C035C803940378
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.t
> On 14 Mar 2018, at 01:28, Paul Templeton wrote:
>
> Thanks nusenu
>
>> I'd say this is broken network and ask them to fix it.
> Ticket has been lodge but it takes for ever to get something done - The node
> has been off line for two weeks now (After a power issue in the rack). There
> has b
Thanks nusenu
> I'd say this is broken network and ask them to fix it.
Ticket has been lodge but it takes for ever to get something done - The node
has been off line for two weeks now (After a power issue in the rack). There
has been issue after issue getting the system up again and now this. Wa
>> Can you elaborate on your network topology and NAT?
>
> Out bound traffic from 95.130.9.210 goes via 95.130.9.1 then 95.130.8.1 then
> out to the real world.
outbound:
[ 95.130.9.210 ] --> [outbound gw 95.130.9.1 ] --> [2th hop 95.130.8.1 ] -->
inet
> In bound traffic comes via 95.130.8.11
> Can you elaborate on your network topology and NAT?
Out bound traffic from 95.130.9.210 goes via 95.130.9.1 then 95.130.8.1 then
out to the real world.
In bound traffic comes via 95.130.8.11 then 9.130.8.120
It's NATted at 95.130.8.11 and all I see is this address connected to the
system(ie
Paul Templeton:
> Hi All,
>
> I have an ISP who has started NATting inbound traffic and has screwed
> DNS resolution. Is there a way to bind DNS requests to use a specific
> IP address (Have multiple) that is not affected with this NATting
> problem.
Can you elaborate on your network topology a
> and has screwed DNS resolution.
;; reply from unexpected source: 95.130.8.11#53, expected 95.130.8.8#53
;; reply from unexpected source: 95.130.8.11#53, expected 95.130.8.9#53
This is the problem I'm having...
609662E824251C283164243846C035C803940378
