Hacker News Reader

Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

Is this specific to Tor, or would it also affect CDN's? I am not a fan of commercial CDN's (for my own hobby sites) so I set up haproxy+strongswan VPN nodes in various VPS sites around the world, that cache and relay traffic to/from a few nodes in another VPS. For all intents and purposes, my websites are actually hidden, despite having public IP addresses and names. I've had front-end caching nodes in Germany before.

View on HN

I think CDN's would be harder to argue as being included. The vagueness seems to put things more like Tor and end-to-end encrypted chat at risk. Any service could be involved with illegal actives, but if there is a clear and primary business/legal need, then it gets harder to argue that it's main purpose is to "encourage illegal actives".

Do you have your setup documented somewhere? It sounds intriguing.

I don't, but my setup isn't complicated at all.

The front end caching nodes are just haproxy 1.9 (which has very simple caching now) which precluded my need for nginx. Those nodes have strongswan in transport mode using a simple pre-shared key. The backend is just a simple apache 2.4 server.

DNS is just NSD with multiple IP's in some of the A records. I don't do any GSLB or Anycast, nothing exciting there. The browser will use whichever IP answers which means the end users could end up on any nodes. I could get fancy and use GeoIP mapping to keep most requests on the same continent. Maybe I should set that up this weekend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com