blob: 0023df0778a7277d774311e0a9c8a06f45bd57f5 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
|
Filename: 108-mtbf-based-stability.txt
Title: Base "Stable" Flag on Mean Time Between Failures
Version: $Revision: 12105 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2007-01-30T07:50:01.643717Z $
Author: Nick Mathewson
Created: 10-Mar-2007
Status: Open
Overview:
This document proposes that we change how directory authorities set the
stability flag from inspection of a router's declared Uptime to the
authorities' perceived mean time between failure for the router.
Motivation:
Clients prefer nodes that the authorities call Stable. This flag is (as
of 0.2.0.0-alpha-dev) set entirely based on the node's declared value for
uptime. This creates an opportunity for malicious nodes to declare
falsely high uptimes in order to get more traffic.
Spec changes:
Replace the current rule for setting the Stable flag with:
"Stable" -- A router is 'Stable' if it is active and its observed MTBF
for the past month is at or above the median MTBF for active routers.
Routers are never called stable if they are running a version of Tor
known to drop circuits stupidly. (0.1.1.10-alpha through 0.1.1.16-rc
are stupid this way.)
MTBF shall be defined as the mean length of the runs observed by a
given directory authority. A run begins when an authority decides
that the server is Running, and ends when the authority decides that
the server is not Running. In-progress runs are counted when
measuring MTBF.
Issues:
How do you define a clipped MTBF? If the current month begins with one
day at the end of a one-year uptime, and then has 29 days of uptime, do we
average one day and 29 days? Or do we average one year and 29 days? Or
take 29 days on its own and discard the year?
Surely somebody has done this kinds of thing before.
|
