Nicholas Hopper <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:35 AM, George Kadianakis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> A patch for the proposal would be useful. If you don't have time to do >> it, just tell me and I will do it myself. > > Here's a patch: > https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~hopper/single-guard-node.patch
Thanks for the patch! FWIW, the original proposal + your patch got merged in torspec as proposal 236. A nitpicking question: > A guard N that has been visible for V out of NNN*30*24 consensuses > has had the opportunity to be chosen as a guard by approximately > F = V/NNN*30*24 of the clients in the network, and the remaining > 1-F fraction of the clients have not noticed this change. So when > being chosen for middle or exit positions on a circuit, clients > should treat N as if F fraction of its bandwidth is a guard > (respectively, dual) node and (1-F) is a middle (resp, exit) node. > Let Wpf denote the weight from the 'bandwidth-weights' line a > client would apply to N for position p if it had the guard > flag, Wpn the weight if it did not have the guard flag, and B the > measured bandwidth of N in the consensus. Then instead of choosing > N for position p proportionally to Wpf*B or Wpn*B, clients should Why do you mention Wpn*B here? That is, in the sentence "Wpf*B or Wpn*B". Since we are talking about picking a *guard* N for middle or exit positions a client would normally only use Wpf*B, right? Or am I confused? > choose N proportionally to F*Wpf*B + (1-F)*Wpn*B. _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
