Delivery-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:58:00 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 626F21E0B88;
	Tue,  5 Aug 2014 12:57:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77A33026B;
	Tue,  5 Aug 2014 16:57:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F347F2E7DF
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  5 Aug 2014 16:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id gIjuJPiLC2An for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue,  5 Aug 2014 16:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC0A82E683
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  5 Aug 2014 16:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id x12so1317018wgg.16
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=from:date:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
 :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
 bh=DeaiY3FlDx4cJSgMW35ekZy18U0Rgnyh9WGsXA493yg=;
 b=Opgdo3gy797/RTCKH/qzZ/KpmwY6i2832ewkeY6vu8yXeym58fFKgDvvVHt9NAee1v
 KCAWcCm+6lk1dMICjgNoCZtFrR4EKod+XtxC01fsGuH2oWnxZq7YuyALGejxYuslvI2N
 whoc54xqODJdcT/iWv6hRZEh3nbgzZKTT7u4bdaNG8ji5dCMQQpzD4CRqzZIPJLggldQ
 GNkqwtC1Jbe4hc77tcl7RBVpQZJTxHuBezukHrgyt0UsUbWstxboSlfsFH2QfoyRMQzl
 Y4I/ue1CsrUeBYCkLTivxbzImbeMifkCEGuuft+AeA/hSW8ui4zGKfOIFu0we/eke3yE
 yOyQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.205.196 with SMTP id li4mr7576311wjc.46.1407257866346;
 Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (2.shulgin.nl.torexit.haema.co.uk. [93.174.90.30])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bx2sm5381264wjb.47.2014.08.05.09.57.44
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Finkel <matthew.finkel@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Matthew Finkel <Matthew.Finkel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:57:57 +0000
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Message-ID: <20140805165756.GC18371@localhost>
References: <CAKMgAkTDBMBnOksQ7U_xdOnOwXBbpoxDBAQZD=jm4_j=smQZbA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMgAkTDBMBnOksQ7U_xdOnOwXBbpoxDBAQZD=jm4_j=smQZbA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Why adding Guard-Exit (EE) node in Tor yeild more
 catch probability than adding guard and exit node separately?
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 10:40:17AM +0900, saurav dahal wrote:
> I am trying to observe the catch probability i.e. probability that a client
> selects my added guard as well as exit node while making a circuit.
> 
> First I inserted certain number of guard nodes and certain number of exit
> nodes in Tor network and performed the simulation in Shadow simulator.
> After completion of simulation, I calculated the catch probability.
> 
> Then again I added the same number of Guard-Exit (EE) node and perform the
> simulation and calculated the probability.
> 
> I found that catch probability for EE nodes are much higher than those of
> guard and exit node separately.
> 
> Could anyone please explain why this happened?

Hi Saurav,

Can you clarify what you mean by Guard-Exit nodes? If I understand
correctly, you ran a simulation where you had x nodes which had the
Guard flag and y exit nodes, then you ran another simulation where
you had (x+y) exit nodes which also had the Guard flag? Is this
correct?

Thanks,
Matt
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

