On Mittwoch, 8. November 2023 20:35:56 CET s7r wrote: > boldsuck wrote: > > > > > Not recommended, but rather a request to try it out. > > > > > So I tried, and besides the log messages that I have a descriptor > mismatch I also get the status of my bridge as not running when ORPort > is not exposed. The minute I switched ORPort to `localhost` the BridgeDB > reported the bridge as not running, regardless it was actually running > with the pluggable transport port open. > That is unfortunately the case. I checked whether they are online at: https://bridges.torproject.org/status?id=[hashed_identity_key] On Tor metrics you can also see that the history continues. > > Some info in the old thread > > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2023-August/021259.html > > > > Relevant tiket from meskio: > > https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/team/-/issues/129 > > > > > Thank you, yes. > But unfortunately I think we are going to need a proposal for this, to > document various use cases and maybe clone the code that does the ORPort > reachability check to do pluggable transport port reachability test, > then build descriptor and then publish, but this needs ORPort like > behavior like NoListen, etc. > That'd be good > > I've gradually reconfigured _all_ bridges over the last 2 months: > > The number of connections/users has stayed pretty much the same. > > Bridges with setting "BridgeDistribution any" the distribution method has > > not changed. > > > > OrPort must forwarded or should not firewalled otherwise the status will > > be dysfunctional on https://bridges.torproject.org/status > > > > I don't care to use BridgeDistribution param, I let BridgeDB decide this > randomly Me too. "BridgeDistribution any" is tor default setting. > but configured without public open ORPort I don't get the > running flag, I get that bridge is down, while it's not actually. > > > >> So what is the best way to for an user to open both IPv4 and IPv6 > >> pluggable transport ports? > > > > > > The ServerTransportListenAddr line is dual stack friendly. > > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 [::]:8443 > > > > > So I saw yes, I was able to use [::]:80 to bind to all interfaces in > dual stack mode but I am not sure the clients are served both the IPv6 > line and the IPv4 line, I think it's just one of them and I was curious > which one and what logic is applied to determine it. > This means that currently one cannot setup a dual stack pluggable > transport bridge, it must be either IPv4 either IPv6, right? > If I use my dual stack bridges with TorBrowser or HS clients, I can use IP and IPv6. 2023-11-08 21:15:20.815 [NOTICE] Bridge 'ForPrivacyNET' has both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. Will prefer using its IPv6 address ([2001:db8:1::228]:11228) based on the configured Bridge address. 2023-11-08 21:15:21.712 [NOTICE] Bridge 'ForPrivacyNET' has both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. Will prefer using its IPv4 address (203.0.113.228:11228) based on the configured Bridge address. -- ╰_╯ Ciao Marco! Debian GNU/Linux It's free software and it gives you freedom!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays