Re: [tor-relays] bridge authority

[nusenu <nusenu-lists@xxxxxxxxxx>]

torjoy:
> The making of a bridge authority desire is from the observation that 
> here in South America we haven't any authority and I think this can 
> help tor to improve the network metrics on South America side. Also 
> maybe in another countries too. Of course, all the current 
> authorities are good but maybe we can improve it inserting more 
> bridges online. I'm operating 3 bridges and one middle-relay for now 
> and all have good metrics but the bandwidth measured is lower than 
> i've set, maybe putting some authority here we can improve the 
> metrics of all relays here in South America.


I believe there is a misunderstanding about bridge authority, tor directory authorities (for relays) and
bandwidth authorities. 
There is currently only one bridge authority AFAIK and I have doubts that
adding one in South America benefits what you are trying to achieve.

If we look at the available bridges over time [1] we can see
that the tor network never recovered from the hard and somewhat unplanned switch
from the previous bridge authority even though it is more than a year ago.

So yes, I believe it would be beneficial for redundancy reasons to have more than one bridge authority
but that is probably a big task.

[1] https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html?start=2017-01-27&end=2019-07-26

-- 
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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