Hi,
> I agree with most of Björn's post, but disagree slightly here:
I fully agree with what Ian said, except for one point. ;)
> The EWMA stuff isn't _trying_ to be fair; it's explicitly trying to
> prioritize circuits for which users will gain utility from lower
> latency, and deprioritize cir
I agree with most of Björn's post, but disagree slightly here:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:54:06AM +0200, Björn Scheuermann wrote:
> > 2) The priority-queue-based circuit scheduling code originally
> > merged in Tor 0.2.2.7-alpha (starting with commit d3be00e0f).
>
> We expect that if the bandwi
Hi Nick,
thanks for the feedback!
> 1) This other work on using N23 with Tor ("DefenstraTor: Throwing
> out Windows in Tor" by AlSabah, Bauer, Goldberg, Grunwald, McCoy,
> Savage, and Voelker):
>http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2011/cacr2011-06.pdf
> (IMO it's a promi
2011/5/6 Björn Scheuermann :
[...]
> We implemented Tor's scheduling mechanisms, the N23 extension, and our
> fairness mechanism in an event-based network simulator (ns-3).
> Independent from the question of inter-circuit fairness, we were able to
> confirm the key findings in the DefenestraTor tec
Hi all,
my group and I have recently been working on the question whether
multiple circuits in Tor share the available bandwidth fairly and
reasonably. What we found is: they don't. Not at all.
First, we developed an analytical model for the fairness between
circuits in an anonymity overlay, and
