> On Mar 28, 2018, at 12:23 PM, David Fifield <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:57:13AM -0400, Rob Jansen wrote: >> In a recent connectivity test to the default obfs4 bridges [0], we found that we are unable to connect to 10 or so of them (from open networks, i.e., no local filtering). >> >> Is this a feature, like some of them only respond to users in certain parts of the world? Or is this a bug, like the default list of bridges refers to old bridges that are no longer available? Or am I misunderstanding functionality here? > > Do you mean 10 distinct IP addresses, or 10 ports on a few IP addresses? > Not all the IP addresses in the list are distinct. > Turns out this was 10 ports on the same IP address. And we did the measurements back in December, so they are already a bit dated. > Even while Lynn Tsai, Qi Zhong, and I were closely monitoring default > bridge reachability, a lot of the default bridges were often offline, > because of reboots, iptables problems, etc. See for example the "Orbot > bridges" strip of Figure 5.2 here; the gray and red areas that precede > blocking are where the bridge was simply offline: > https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/thesis/fifield-thesis.pdf#page=43 > > We have a lot of past measurements of default bridges. The rows with > site="eecs-login" are from the U.S. > https://www.bamsoftware.com/proxy-probe/ (download the repo, not > probe.csv.gz, which isn't as recent) Ahh, this is great, thanks for sending! Best, Rob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev