Delivery-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:51:23 -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 C76E21E0AC4;
	Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:51:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5460338646;
	Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB1E38644
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:50:57 +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 hoKiU-U5_F6z for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:50:57 +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 3C01238643
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:50:57 +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 tBFGoqXU022563
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:50:52 -0500
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215114431.0479f8d8@binnacle.cx>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:00 -0500
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
From: starlight@binnacle.cx
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151213114726.047644d0@flumedata.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151213114726.047644d0@flumedata.com>
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: Re: [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>

Finally came up with a search that yielded
helpful information.  Searching

   "tor" "Wgd=0"

pulled a mathematically intense post written
by Mike Perry:

https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2010-January/001039.html

Which discusses validation of the statistics
with Mathematica and provides insight into
the design.  No mention of Wgm but I will
spend a few days working to understand
the math and perhaps will see how Wgm
fits into the picture.




At 12:01 12/13/2015 -0500, you wrote:
>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

