[tor-project] Diversifying Bandwidth Measurement

[teor]

> On 27 Feb 2017, at 13:46, teor <teor2345 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 27 Feb 2017, at 13:23, Sebastian Hahn <tor at sebastianhahn.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I am and always have been operating my own https server for the bw files
>> that sits directly next to the dirauth/bwauth server. I totally hoped
>> everoyne else was doing the same thing or at least not share the same
>> server for more than one bwauth instance. Is that incorrect?
> 
> I don't know: but it seems that the issue with Cogent affects a
> majority of the bandwidth authorities. Perhaps it's more than just
> cymru that's affected?
> 
> If you send me the address of your HTTPS server, I can ask a relay
> operator to do a traceroute and speed test. Or you can do one to
> 51.15.50.10 (which used to get multiple megabytes a second, but has
> dropped to 500 KB/s).

The operator gets 194 KB/s over a 14-hop path from Paris to a bandwidth
authority server in Erlangen, Germany. (Paris, Amsterdam, Hamburg,
Erlangen.)

This looks like it's a problem for any AS that transits via Cogent.
It's certainly not cmryu-specific, or even specific to North America.

It appears that the Tor bandwidth authorities really should be
down-rating Exits on these networks.

It would still be great to make sure we don't have a single point of
failure for the bandwidth authority HTTPS server. But I think we're ok
otherwise.

T

--
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org
------------------------------------------------------------------------



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/attachments/20170227/1859d38e/attachment-0001.sig>