On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Salvatore Lionetti
<salvatorelionetti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I think that
"Have tried resolving or connecting to address '[scrubbed]' at 3 different places. Giving up."
is the problem.
To resolve it follow post of JUSTIN APLIN.
In my case i have a dyndns account. Once done you have wonned a domain name.
After that at every new connection you need to register your current ip:
- by the router automagically (my digicom support it, enter name, password, domain name)
- by hand visiting the site dyndns (at least for an initial try)
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:14 PM, K. N.
<fizyxnrd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the help... I think I've done most of these things already, but still no dice.
At the moment, I have ports 9000 and 9001 open, with DirPort 9001 and ORPort 9000 in my torrc file.
I had to change my /etc/init.d/tor to change
DEFAULTSFILE=/etc/default/$NAME
to
DEAULTSFILE-~/.vidalia/torrc
since, lacking root privileges, vidalia could not write to the default torrc.
The message log reports that tor successfully guesses my IP address (the IP address that my router has) so dynamic IP doesn't seem to be the issue.
I don't have a software firewall.
Unfortunately, the 2701HG-B does not support upnp. :(
The message log reports that my DNS provider hijacks DNS failures. I don't think this should be the issue preventing my tor relay from working, but maybe?
Also,
<:You have to configure portforwarding for your Tor relay too:>
A previous reply also said this. I created a custom application for tor that directs ports 9000 and 9001 to my tor relay host.
I believe this is what you mean, and that I have already done this. There isn't another meaning to this, is there? (I have verified that this method does, in fact, forward the ports using a different, MSWin machine).
After connecting (as a client) to the Tor network, I get multiple notices of
"Have tried resolving or connecting to address '[scrubbed]' at 3 different places. Giving up."
Is this related?
My router is in "stealth mode" (not returning port scan requests) but the PF port checker tests successfully just the same, so I don't think this is the issue. (?)
Sorry this is (or I am) stubborn.