server incorrectly believes IP address has changed

[Scott Bennett]

     On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:31:24 +0000 Robert Hogan <robert at roberthogan.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday 20 November 2007 21:34:16 you wrote:
>>
>>      cached-routers and cached-routers.new are not the file names used in
>> 0.2.0.12-alpha, but rather cached-descriptors and cached-descriptors.new,
>> and in my original message, I wrote:
>>
>>  ->     I restarted my tor server a couple of hours ago, and since then, =
>it
>> has ->been acting very peculiarly.  Here are the notice-level log file
>> entries since ->startup.  Note that I deleted cached-descriptors and
>> cached-descriptors.new ->after shutting down tor and before shutting down
>> the system several hours prior ->to this startup.
>>
>
>Ah, missed that. It looks like cached-routers is still a fallback though, s=
>o=20
>if it is still there it will get read. In fact, if cached-routers *was* sti=

     It wasn't.  I got rid of cached-routers{,.new} after installing the first
version that used the new names.
>ll=20
>present  that would explain why the address was noticeably out of date.=20
>
>
>
>> >occasion my own *guess* would be that tor is using the old IP stored
>> > there,=3D =3D20
>> >especially since 66.225.42.30 was your address at one point:
>> >=3D20
>> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=3D3Den&q=3D3Dmycroftsotherchild+66.225.4=
>2.30&b
>> >t=3D nG=3D3DSearch
>>
>
>Whoops,=20
>
>>      Yes, the ISP has a limited list of IP addresses that it assigns, so
>> the same addresses do recur frequently.  In this case, I noted,
>>
>>  ->Nov 20 06:29:37.282 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort 66.225.36.5:9=
>95
>> and DirPort 66.225.36.5:443 are reachable... (this may take up to 20
>> minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) ->
>>  ->     Note that the above address was incorrect.  The correct address
>> was, and ->still is, 66.225.42.30.  It has not changed since before the
>> system was ->rebooted.
>>
>> >Whether it 's a good thing for Tor to just try the last known good
>> > address=3D =3D20
>> >rather than  figure it out all over again on the off-chance it may be out
>> > o=3D f=3D20
>> >date, I don't know.
>>
>>      I thought the point of specifying a host+domain name in the "Address"
>> line was to get tor to *look it up in the name server net*.

     I still don't understand why tor did *not* look it up while starting.  If
it had looked up the name, it would have gotten the correct address.
     BTW, it is still running fine since I restarted it at 08:33 this morning
to get rid of the weird behavior, which I did without again deleting the
cached-descriptors{,.new} files.  What exactly does tor do differently about
its own address when those files are not present at startup?  I.e., what is
it doing differently in that situation that it fails to look up the IP address
for

Address mars.thruhere.net

that is in the torrc file while starting up?
     Note to Robert Hogan:  the copy addressed to you of my previous
message bounced.  Here are the errors, indented by a blank:

    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
 <robert at roberthogan.net>
     (reason: 550-Verification failed for <bennett at cs.niu.edu>)
 
    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
 ... while talking to roberthogan.net.:
 >>> DATA
 <<< 550-Verification failed for <bennett at cs.niu.edu>
 <<< 550-Called:   131.156.68.41
 <<< 550-Sent:     RCPT TO:<bennett at cs.niu.edu>
 <<< 550-Response: 550 5.7.1 <bennett at cs.niu.edu>... Access denied
 <<< 550 Sender verify failed
 550 5.1.1 <robert at roberthogan.net>... User unknown
 <<< 503-All RCPT commands were rejected with this error:
 <<< 503-Sender verify failed
 <<< 503 Valid RCPT command must precede DATA



                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************