Tor Zilla wrote: > You are right. I am using a DSL connection and my IP keeps changing often.... > > What i am going to do is setup a bridge instead of a non exit relay and watch > how much i can contribute to the community.
Sorry for jumping in---I'm seen this a few times and wonder whether it's really a good approach. AFAIK, bridge addresses are often distributed through less reliable and higher-latency means, since the point is that clients can't just look them up via directory servers. If hosting bridges on unstable IP addresses is frequent, I'd expect users who _need_ them to start experiencing "obtain bridge address via highly rate-limited and possibly dangerous mechanism; it becomes unusable within a short period of time; no good way to know where it went because Tor access is already gone; go back into the breach again and possibly be denied further addresses or risk getting caught". So I'd think the effective stability requirements for a bridge, especially for IP address stability (maybe not for other kinds of stability?), are higher than for an "ordinary" relay for it to be a net positive. I see some posts on the Tor blog from a few years ago about trying to figure out how to compensate for this, and I saw some tickets about getting metrics about bridge address stability, but I haven't seen anything about good solutions yet. Is this logic sound, or have I missed something important? ---> Drake Wilson _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
