Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi Florentin, Thanks for the thoughtful response! > So why is it working? I come up the following conclusion: OVH is a big enough > company not to lie with "unlimited, unmetered 100Mbits". I did not try other > big providers, but that would be likely the same result. > > Conclusion: we can ru

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi all :) On 2018-03-08 00:31, A. Johnson wrote: On Mar 7, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Florentin Rochet > wrote: Hello, On 2018-03-07 14:31, Aaron Johnson wrote: Hello friends, 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market offers. Your

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Florentin Rochet > wrote: > > Hello, > > > On 2018-03-07 14:31, Aaron Johnson wrote: >> Hello friends, >> >>> 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market >>> offers. Your $500/Gbps/month seems quite expensive compared to what >>> can be f

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello Florentin Rochet wrote: > Hello, > > > On 2018-03-07 14:31, Aaron Johnson wrote: >> Hello friends, >> >>> 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market >>> offers. Your $500/Gbps/month seems quite expensive compared to what >>> can be found on OVH (which is hosting a

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi Rob, Thank you for your comments! On 07/03/18 18:34, Rob Jansen wrote: > Hi Florentin, > > I've added some comments below. > > Overall, I think a useful discussion for the community to have is to discuss > whether or not we think Waterfilling is even a good idea in the first place, > before

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello, On 2018-03-07 14:31, Aaron Johnson wrote: > Hello friends, > >> 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market >> offers. Your $500/Gbps/month seems quite expensive compared to what >> can be found on OVH (which is hosting a large number of relays): they >> ask ~3 euro

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Sorry, that link should have been >. Best, Aaron > On Mar 7, 2018, at 4:18 PM, A. Johnson wrote: > > OVH and OVH resellers do seem to have some insane prices. > > On the other end, the waterfi

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

OVH and OVH resellers do seem to have some insane prices. On the other end, the waterfilling assumption we were working off of was a water level of 10Mbps. A server that can sustain that seems quite cheap. In fact, a quick Google search for “cheap vps” yielded this offer of a VPS with one IPv4

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Aaron Johnson wrote: > Currently on OVH the best I could find for hosting just now was > $93.02/per month for 250Mbps unlimited > (https://www.ovh.co.uk/dedicated_servers/hosting/1801host01.xml). https://www.ovh.com/world/discover/poland.xml $49.99/per month, 500 Mbps bandwidth (burst 1 Gbps )

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

> On 7 Mar 2018, at 18:34, Rob Jansen wrote: > > It is far more expensive to obtain *continuous*, i.e., *sustained* bandwidth > usage over time. Generally, it's cheaper to buy in bulk. In the US, the > cheapest bandwidth service we found (that also allows us to run Tor relays) > was one that

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Rob Jansen wrote: > > Hi Florentin, > > I've added some comments below. (I just found out that Aaron responded to your reply this morning, but I didn't get that email (it probably got stuck somewhere in the NRL email filters). Sorry if I made any points that w

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi Florentin, I've added some comments below. Overall, I think a useful discussion for the community to have is to discuss whether or not we think Waterfilling is even a good idea in the first place, before you go ahead and do a bunch of work writing and fixing a proposal that may just end up

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

>> 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market offers. >> Your $500/Gbps/month seems quite expensive compared to what can be found on >> OVH (which is hosting a large number of relays): they ask ~3 euros/IP/month, >> including unlimited 100 Mbps traffic. If we assume that

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello friends, > 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market offers. > Your $500/Gbps/month seems quite expensive compared to what can be found on > OVH (which is hosting a large number of relays): they ask ~3 euros/IP/month, > including unlimited 100 Mbps traffic. If we

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi Aaron, Thanks for your comments, you are definitely touching interesting aspects. Here are thoughts regarding your objections: 1) The cost of IPs vs. bandwidth is definitely a function of market offers. Your $500/Gbps/month seems quite expensive compared to what can be found on OVH (which

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello, I recently took the time to read the waterfilling paper. I’m not sure its a good idea even for the goal of increasing the cost of traffic correlation attacks. It depends on whether it is easier for an adversary to run many small relays of total weight x or a few large relays of total wei

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi, > On 4 Mar 2018, at 02:37, Florentin Rochet > wrote: > > I have a few questions about convergence/divergence of weights, but > maybe we could take advantage of the meeting in Rome to discuss this avenue? I was wrong. The current network doesn't attempt to converge on a stable set of weight

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi teor, Sorry about the huge delay :) I've added your following idea to the proposal (seems we come up to the right way to do it :-)): > Why not list the waterfilling level on a single line in the consensus? > > That way: > * authorities do the expensive calculation > * clients can re-weight re

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

On 1 Feb 2018, at 07:15, Florentin Rochet wrote: >> On 18/01/18 01:03, teor wrote: >> >>> I've added this concern within the 'unanswered questions' section. This >>> proposal assumes relay measurement are reliable (consensus weight). >> How reliable? >> >> Current variance is 30% - 40% between

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi, I updated the proposal with some more of your advises, questions and concerns. On 18/01/18 01:03, teor wrote: > >> I've added this concern within the 'unanswered questions' section. This >> proposal assumes relay measurement are reliable (consensus weight). > How reliable? > > Current varianc

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

> On 29 Jan 2018, at 08:00, Florentin Rochet > wrote: > > Hello, > >> On 28/01/18 11:52, teor wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have some more questions: > > Nice, thanks! I still have to answer your previous email and push an > update to the proposal. I should do it this week, sorry for late answers :)

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello, On 28/01/18 11:52, teor wrote: > Hi, > > I have some more questions: Nice, thanks! I still have to answer your previous email and push an update to the proposal. I should do it this week, sorry for late answers :) See inline a few answers to your questions: > > On 18 Jan 2018, at 11:03,

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi, I have some more questions: On 18 Jan 2018, at 11:03, teor wrote: > Unanswered questions: The Tor network has been experiencing excessive load on guards and middles since December 2017. Does the waterfilling proposal make excessive load on guards worse, by allocating more guard weigh

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

> On 18 Jan 2018, at 08:10, Florentin Rochet > wrote: > ... >> It might help to provide a procedural algorithm for assigning >> bandwidth, as well as equations. It would resolve some ambiguity. > > Not sure to understand what 'bandwidth' signifies here. I can provide a > procedural algorithm t

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello, Thank you again for your valuable comments and efforts for improving! I have added the proposal here: https://github.com/frochet/wf_proposal. And, btw, the slides from the talk might help to understand the proposal (for anyone that hesitates to dive into it: You can browse the slide at htt

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

> On 13 Jan 2018, at 01:17, Florentin Rochet > wrote: > > Hello, > > Thank you for your helpful review, teor. > > I updated the proposal from most of your comments (see attached .txt) and I > respond inline to add some precisions relative to a few of your questions. > > Btw, I've mirrored

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello, Thank you for your helpful review, teor. I updated the proposal from most of your comments (see attached .txt) and I respond inline to add some precisions relative to a few of your questions. Btw, I've mirrored my private repo to github https://github.com/frochet/Waterfilling, such t

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

On 2018-01-11 08:47 AM, teor wrote: > What about guards that have low consensus weight due to latency, > rather than available bandwidth? > > I think this could also cause you huge latency issues as you push more > bandwidth away from fast relays. I'm not sure if shadow captures this > accurately.

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hi Florentin, I have copied your proposal below, so I can respond to it inline. > On 11 Jan 2018, at 21:00, Florentin Rochet > wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > In order that our paper does not fall into the list of "yet another > seems-to-be-cool-feature is that never going to be discussed bec

[tor-dev] Proposal Waterfilling

Hello everyone, In order that our paper does not fall into the list of "yet another seems-to-be-cool-feature is that never going to be discussed because researchers moved on another topic", here is an attached proposal in which we summarize our work published in the last PETS event and how it