Re: [tor-relays] Balancing throughput versus getting Black-Holed

[Mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/25/2017 12:31 PM, teor wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Oct 2017, at 10:23, Mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/25/2017 11:31 AM, Paul Templeton wrote:
>>>
>>>> How long is your relay blackholed for?
>>> Usually 12Hrs - I'll look at a second IP to see if it helps a bit.
>>>
>>> Having the ability to rotate address would be good... :)
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> I wonder how quickly the subnet would get black-holed.
>>
>> I've thought of doing that with IPv6. With a /64, the relay could use a
>> new OutboundBindAddress for each circuit.
> 
> Or each stream.

Right, per stream :) That'd be cool.

> There's a design tradeoff here: using a different address for each stream
> provides less linkability between streams on the same circuit. But it may
> confuse remote websites that expect all requests from a page to come from
> the same source IP address.

Could circuit vs stream be configurable in the client?

> I think we would probably choose an IP per stream, because our design is
> willing to compromise usability on a few websites for privacy on all.
> 
>> But maybe the /64 would just
>> get black-holed.
> 
> Maybe. Shall we try it and see?
> 
>> DirPort and ORPort would, of course, be IPv4.
> 
> Relays must have an IPv4 ORPort.
> 
> Relays should also declare (if possible):
> * an IPv4 DirPort, to help other relays and tools like stem
> * an IPv6 ORPort, to help IPv6 clients
> 
> T
> 
> --
> Tim / teor
> 
> PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
> ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
> 
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays