Delivery-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:06:13 -0500
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=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 2D92F1E03F4;
	Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:06:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9121536751;
	Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C0E34CDC
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
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 fs3Q3xw0l8lF for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx.binnacle.cx (mx.binnacle.cx [IPv6:2001:470:885c:87::18])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx.binnacle.cx", Issuer "RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A96A33243
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CIANNAIT.binnacle.cx (ciannait [172.29.87.10])
 by mx.binnacle.cx (envelope-from <starlight@binnacle.cx>)
 (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id tBDH5ug1025220
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:05:56 -0500
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151213114726.047644d0@flumedata.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:01:15 -0500
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
From: starlight@binnacle.cx
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 on 172.29.87.18
Received-SPF: pass (mx.binnacle.cx: 172.29.87.10 is whitelisted by SPF-milter
 whitelist entry)
Subject: [tor-talk] Why is 'Wgm' (middle-relay-for-guard weight) not zero?
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>

The recent major fix for #17772 inspired
reflection on the practical effect
considering relay weighting.  Knowing
nothing about it aside from the graph
lines shown by Atlas and Globe, I thought
the change might make little difference
as Guard Weight would mostly prevent
non-guards from being considered.

However, per dir-spec and the current
consensus, it seems that middle relays
have a weight equal to guard relays
when guard selection occurs:

Wgd=0     - exit as guard
Wgg=6065  - guard as guard
Wgm=6065  - no-flag as guard

I would like to understand the purpose
behind this.  Can anyone comment?

Thanks

-- 
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

