Re: [tor-relays] A call to arms for obfuscated bridges

[Moritz Bartl <moritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16.04.2013 22:49, Martin Weinelt wrote:
> Does it make sense to launch an Obfsproxy on a IP already running a
> relay node? 

That is a fine question. Some countries currently seem to block relays
by IP:Port combination, so the rest of the ports could be still
reachable. In theory, it should work to be a relay and run obfsproxy on
top of it, but i am not sure it works in practice.

> I added the SoftwareTransportPlugins to my configuration and upon
> rehashing it showed it listened to two more ports:
> 22:43:39 [NOTICE] Registered server transport 'obfs2' at '0.0.0.0:47533'
> 22:43:39 [NOTICE] Registered server transport 'obfs3' at '0.0.0.0:42580'
> 
> I however did not yet add "BridgeRelay 1" because I don't know how
> that affects relay functionality.
> 
> Where do I go from here?

Make sure the two ports are reachable from the outside. I don't know if
Tor publishes these ports to BridgeDB (the place where censored users
will learn about bridges) without being a bridge relay, and you cannot
enable "BridgeRelay 1" because one Tor process can either be a relay or
a bridge.

If you want to make sure it works, you have to spin up and manage a
second Tor process.

-- 
Moritz Bartl
https://www.torservers.net/
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays