Re: [tor-relays] About relay size

[Santiago <santiagorr@xxxxxxxxxx>]

El 02/10/17 a las 13:19, Scott Bennett escribió:
> grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Santiago <santiagorr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
…
> 
>      Huh?  What kind of ISP NATs its customers' connections?  Your ISP
> should be assigning your machine/router a legitimate, unique IPv4 address.
> The assignment is often, even usually, a temporary assignment via DHCP,
> but it should not be a private address.  If NAT is a factor, that should
> happen at the boundary of your own private network, not at an ISP's facility.

It seems that a French ISP was also planning to share an IPv4 address
per four costumers.

…
>      I'll second the above comments.  Most of those little router boxes are
> running some form of LINUX or FreeBSD as an embedded configuration, which
> includes swapping and paging being disabled due to the absence of secondary
> storage.  All of them have limited RAM.  One typical problem with running tor
> on a NATed machine behind such a device is that the NAT table grows until all
> of the real memory on the device has been consumed and there is no more room
> for new NAT entries.

I am not currently able to replace the modem/router my ISP provides. But
I'd plan to give it away in the future.

In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.

Cheers,

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