Delivery-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:11:55 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0131A1E0EB9
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:11:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2281D2F84D;
	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:11:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D207F2FD06
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id VRJ0RSsZwGFn for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22c.google.com (mail-wg0-x22c.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF892F8B2
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x13so327851wgg.15
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=9/AdD3Htgrg9p40jUt3Q/rOQ6RuquUcPWoPVYE4gxgE=;
 b=bOKFeE6dbRgP1d+RQExcPZF/+dn1aDdBP+BkR53UkbrHAAl+pRyO0kgE7goWGFQT1b
 fOcyxVh3gbm8l1/Atbs5E7UKY7eqDLqy/iTQLXoJupXJm1KHqrR/jYb905Pfq2eLVaef
 yBZ+brDVlHXe37YtQ66LSetnbXb6rwd8ikolmoA9Tac+Qjl7IcTh8iMpZb9xGwTmnIO8
 IM6/T6ADbl6iLgpSnY95o0WF6J38XtFxujsWGGU7hCDs5LGFhBs5Nhl2e4vU6ZbwdzlH
 4pQJk33G7rezldrdH+0/TUxDs15aVzivOQ/s9enughka70622hsr7T7AmevxGblWHAav
 lAZg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.97.195 with SMTP id ec3mr2354047wib.13.1403615236182;
 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.101.195 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:07:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKkunMZZ752LeEJDPcZHavtaOwMXHewJksTmKjLqoPC_8fdtaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: [tor-talk] Running an exit node which exits on a different IP than
	it listens to
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

I have been sorting through my mailbox the last few days and stumbled
upon an email from 2012, from this mailing list. A worried user got a
false negative from check.torproject.org because an exit relay sent
exit traffic out on an IP that's different from what was advertised.

However, this made me think that it is perhaps not such a bad idea if
more exit relays did that, even slower ones. I have access to a couple
of IP numbers that I could easily configure in this way.

Basically: Use one IP for Tor traffic, and one IP for exit traffic.
The Tor traffic IP:Port is what would be advertised to the Tor
network, and only that.

The reason would be to minimize the chances of the exit IP ending up
in some overzealous blacklist. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the
blacklist operators just scrape the public list of relays and then
they end up in a lot of places where the customer is not even aware
what is being blocked. This is painfully obvious to people running a
non-exit relay from home, when trying to use IRC or other services.

Is this a good idea to do if you have the resources? Will it cause any
non-obvious problems? I guess one problem is that check.torproject.org
will show that you're not using Tor, unless it's been modified since
2012 to check this in another way.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, please ask me to clarify
if this is the case.

// Anders
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

