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

Re: server incorrectly believes IP address has changed

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 21:34:16 you wrote:
>      cached-routers and cached-routers.new are not the file names used in
>, but rather cached-descriptors and cached-descriptors.new,
> and in my original message, I wrote:
>  ->     I restarted my tor server a couple of hours ago, and since then, it
> has ->been acting very peculiarly.  Here are the notice-level log file
> entries since ->startup.  Note that I deleted cached-descriptors and
> cached-descriptors.new ->after shutting down tor and before shutting down
> the system several hours prior ->to this startup.

Ah, missed that. It looks like cached-routers is still a fallback though, so 
if it is still there it will get read. In fact, if cached-routers *was* still 
present  that would explain why the address was noticeably out of date. 

> >occasion my own *guess* would be that tor is using the old IP stored
> > there,= =20
> >especially since was your address at one point:
> >=20
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&q=3Dmycroftsotherchild+
> >t= nG=3DSearch


>      Yes, the ISP has a limited list of IP addresses that it assigns, so
> the same addresses do recur frequently.  In this case, I noted,
>  ->Nov 20 06:29:37.282 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort
> and DirPort are reachable... (this may take up to 20
> minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) ->
>  ->     Note that the above address was incorrect.  The correct address
> was, and ->still is,  It has not changed since before the
> system was ->rebooted.
> >Whether it 's a good thing for Tor to just try the last known good
> > address= =20
> >rather than  figure it out all over again on the off-chance it may be out
> > o= f=20
> >date, I don't know.
>      I thought the point of specifying a host+domain name in the "Address "
> line was to get tor to *look it up in the name server net*.
> >The tone of your comments below is unfair to Csaba. He was merely offering
> > = a=20
> >friendly (and free) suggestion. No one would ever respond to anyone else
> > on= =20
> >this list if that sort of thing was the default response.
>      In that case, I apologize.  I took offense at the comments that
> appeared to ignore what I had written, while taking a very condescending
> tone and assuming I hadn't done the obvious checking before posting.

Thanks for taking the point!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.