Re: [tor-relays] Final Warning Notice

[Chris Sheats <yawnbox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike-

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Mike Perry <mikeperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Lunar:
>> Chris Sheats:
>> > Hey tor-relays,
>> >
>> > The past few months, since I upgraded my net connection to 1Gbps, I've
>> > hit the top 40 fastest relays and the top 20 fastest exit nodes,
>> > peaking to over 17 MB/s. I've always prided the fact that my ISP,
>> > CondoInternet in Seattle, has been very welcoming of my reduced exit
>> > node. In the past, the malicious activity hasn't been "too much" for
>> > my ISP--examples here: http://yawnbox.com/1461--but now they want me
>> > to shut it down. What are my options?
>
> By "reduced", were you using the ReducedExitPolicy? This would eliminate
> the bittorrent complaints. It sounds like you were, but I wanted to
> confirm (and your node is no longer in the consensus :/).
>
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ReducedExitPolicy

Yes, I followed the ReducedExitPolicy exactly. In a follow-up email
response, I informed my ISP that I stopped my Tor service on this
node, and they mentioned two things: BitTorrent-legal complaints, and
HTTP/S SQL injections.

>
>> Is their problem the amount of work they have to do because of the abuse
>> and legal complaints? Then offer to handle them directly.
>>
>> The best way to do so is to become the contact address for the IP. With
>> your Regional Internet Registry, the process is usually called SWIP [1].
>> The issue you might run into is that SWIP is only available for a
>> minimum of 8 IPv4 addresses. So they might charge you more and you might
>> have to switch to a new IP address.
>>
>> You probably should switch to a non-exit policy while negociating. If
>> you and CondoInternet are not able to find a process where you could
>> handle abuses directly, fast non-exit relays with good bandwidth are
>> still a very useful contribution to the network! (and they would not get
>> any legal complaints)
>
> Yes, I want to emphasize the value of being a high capacity non-exit
> relay. I want to investigate various types of padding for Website
> Traffic Fingerprinting and correlation, and I think that if we end up
> having more Guard bandwidth than Exit bandwidth, we can write parameters
> into the consensus that instruct clients to use this extra capacity for
> padding:
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7028
>
> Did they shut you down entirely, even forbidding non-exit for some
> reason? Or did you decide to move to a new ISP that supports exits?

I turned Tor off voluntarily, and have been planning on reconfiguring
my node for relay-only traffic. In previous correspondence, I asked if
there were any other Tor Exit's on their network, and they said no. So
this isn't a good precedent for TorProject/Seattle volunteers
considering that they provide 100 and 1000 Mbps service.

>
>
> --
> Mike Perry
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>



-- 
Chris Sheats
yawnbox@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays