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

Re: New Node

Thus spake mick (mbm@xxxxxxxxxx):

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:30:32 -0400
> > 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.

It depends on the ISP. If you get lucky, you can find upstart ISPs who
have negotiated the ability to announce BGP with their upstream. I
believe that this is all you need. I am not sure how common these
agreements are, or if they have limits on their annoncements. However,
there is an open source BGP daemon, so there has to be at least a few
of these folks out there: http://www.openbgpd.org/. Maybe we should
try to reach out to that development community, tell them about Tor
and see who knows who, and who might be Tor-friendly?

The flip side of this is actually getting the small allocation from
the RIR. I bet this will be a lot easier with IPv6, but we do know
some folks at RIPE that are Tor-friendly.

Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs

Attachment: pgpqA5ccGeNXX.pgp
Description: PGP signature