Hello Everyone,<br><br>Firstly thank all of you so much for your concern. I really appreciate all effort which for anonymity by open source.<br><br>Mike, I'm reading and trying to understand your changes on path and dir-spec. Could you say please why there isn't "Wge" integer value on list? Can't we select a node with exit flag for guard position? <br>
<br>Also could you please explain what is the condition of below statement on path-spec? ;<br><br>"If we're using Guard nodes, the first node must be a Guard (see 5 below )" <br><br>It says see 5 below but even i've read 5. section i couldn't get what is the condition of this statement; "if we're using Guard nodes".<br>
<br>Thanks in advance.<br>ilter<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Mike Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikeperry@fscked.org">mikeperry@fscked.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thus spake Nick Mathewson (<a href="mailto:nickm@freehaven.net">nickm@freehaven.net</a>):<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 2010/2/12 ilter yüksel <<a href="mailto:ilteryuksel@gmail.com">ilteryuksel@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div><div class="im">> > "For circuits that do not need to be "fast", when choosing among multiple<br>
> > candidates for a path element, we choose randomly. For "fast" circuits, we<br>
> > pick a given router as an exit with probability proportional to its<br>
> > bandwidth."<br>
> ><br>
> > Could anybody explain why Tor pick exit router with probability proportional<br>
> > to its bandwidth only for fast circuits? As far as i know Tor uses this<br>
> > technique for load-balance. But why it uses this technique only for fast<br>
> > circuits?<br>
><br>
> First of all, "Fast" circuits are a bit misnamed as used in<br>
> path-spec.txt. Basically, "fast" means "bandwidth-sensitive". The<br>
> only ones that aren't don't need to be "fast" in this sense are ones<br>
> that are going to be used only for a tiny amount of traffic.<br>
><br>
> That said, I think the statement in path-spec.txt may be poor. It<br>
> probably makes sense to weight all choices by bandwidth, now that<br>
> bandwidth is measured rather than just being self-advertised.<br>
><br>
> To see what the code is actually doing, the string to search for is<br>
> need_capacity or NEED_CAPACITY. The most interesting layer to look<br>
> for this is at is where it's passed as a flag to<br>
> circuit_launch_by_router() or circuit_launch_by_extend_info().<br>
<br>
</div>Ok, I've gone ahead and fixed both the spec and the code in<br>
mikeperry/consensus-bw-weights4 in my git repo.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Mike Perry<br>
Mad Computer Scientist<br>
<a href="http://fscked.org" target="_blank">fscked.org</a> evil labs<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>