[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Node

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:30:32 -0400
Andrew Lewis <andrew@xxxxxxxxxx> allegedly wrote:
> The second question was more focused at other relay owners, since we
> all seem to be having trouble with DMCA.
> I had briefly talked to some one else about it, but the proper term
> is Provider Independent IP
> Space<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provider-independent_address_space>.

As that wikipedia entry alludes, ISPs tend not to like this approach.
I used to manage a set of 5 /24s (old style class C nets) which were
independently owned. Moving them between ISPs blows holes in
contiguous address space routing - this tend to make the ISPs unhappy
because of the additional management overhead.
> Tor nodes seem to be having an issue with DMCA notifications pissing
> off hosting providers. Thus we have to either host the nodes with more
> "understanding" hosts or limit our exit policies so that we limit the
> notifications. This is a problem because the more leniet hosts don't
> all ways have the resources or connections that other places have.
> If tor nodes controlled their own IP space then they can host their
> nodes inside any data center and easier to host without worrying
> about DMCA notices shutting down nodes. It would also allow more
> liberal exit policies so that other types of traffic can be allowed,
> even if they are more likely to generate notifications.
> The only problem is that if it is described as tor only, then it
> might be easier to block by various groups. Anyone have any thoughts?

It is alreday pretty easy to block Tor activity if you choose. The
project publishes lists of all exit nodes and even offers a DNSrbl list
to those who may wish to use it.


The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. 
Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?

Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature