On 16/09/14 06:07, David Fifield wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:43:45AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote: >> On 16/09/14 03:36, David Fifield wrote: >>> In comparing the user graphs of pluggable transports, I found that there >>> seems to be a correlation between the graphs of flashproxy and meek. >>> [...] >>> >>> To figure this out I'm thinking of i) counting bytes transferred on the >>> flashproxy and meek external ports, or ii) moving one to a different >>> bridge (or different tor instance), to see if the effect remains. Do you >>> have any other ideas? >> >> Hi David, >> >> here's what I think might cause this: we're counting consensuses >> downloaded from a bridge via any supported transport, and then we're >> attributing those downloads to specific transports based on what >> fraction of IPs connected per transport. > > I see! Thank you. I imagine it would make a big difference in this case, > because flash proxy and meek are polar opposites: flash proxy gets > connections from tons of random IPs (often different IPs for the same > client), and meek is always getting connections from the same CDN edge > servers (the same IP for many different clients). If I understand it > right, we are over-counting flash proxy and over-counting meek.
Under-counting meek, but yes. >> What we should do instead is count consensus downloads by transport. >> There's a ticket for this, but nobody is currently working on it: >> >> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8786 >> >> Your idea ii) should fix this. >> >> Of course, you'd be in a good position to test a patch for #8786. Would >> you want to hack on that? > > We'll see :) For the time being I'll try isolating the transports and > see what effect it has. Please keep us posted how that works out. All the best, Karsten _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
