#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 I2P Protocol Development Discussion - Next Meeting Monday, October 9th 6:30 UTC

eyedeekay In case anybody wanted to mess around with P2P-videochat-over-I2P:

eyedeekay git clone github.com/eyedeekay/rtchat ~/go/src/github.com/YuukanOO/rtcchat

eyedeekay cd ~/go/src/github.com/YuukanOO/rtcchat

eyedeekay go run cmd/server/main.go -debug -i2p

eyedeekay It will generate 2 SAM listeners, one for HTTP and one for TURN, as well as a self-signed cert.pem and keys.pem

eyedeekay The base32 of the HTTP listener will be in rtcchat.i2p.public.txt, visit that page in a browser and accept the self-signed cert

eyedeekay You end up in a Jitsi/Whereby/Zoom-ish videochat

eyedeekay Won't work in TBB, will work in Firefox and Brave when configured to enforce WebRTC proxy obedience

eyedeekay With just 2 participants it's... OK. Might disable video by default to see if that makes it much better

orignal what do we put into address block of PeerTest message for mag 5?

orignal It's required for any PeerTest messgae

orignal it makes sense for 6 but not for 5

zzz orignal, I send the exact same thing in msg 3 and msg 5

orignal no, I mean Address Block explictly

orignal there is no AddressBlock in mag 3 because it's Data

orignal only in 5,6,7

zzz oh sorry

zzz actually it makes sense for 5 and 7 but not 6

zzz it's the ip/port you are sending to

zzz but probably not necessary in 5 or 7 anyway, because it's in the peer test block

orignal why do it make sense for 5?

orignal you don't know actual Alice's IP by that moment

orignal it makes sense only for 6 or maybe 7

orignal Chralie sends 5 to Alice

orignal Alice recognizes Cralie's actual address and sends back in 6

orignal for 7 it might make sense to let Alice know how Chralie sees her address

orignal to recognize symmetric NAT etc

zzz so in msg 5 you send the requested ip, but in msg 7 you send the ip received in msg 6?

zzz I need to look at how SSU 1 works

orignal but why should I send Alice's IP back in msg5? it doesn't contain any new information

orignal while in 7 Charlie knows actual Alicer's IP, e.g. where 6 came from

zzz yeah you are right

zzz looking at my ssu 1 code...

zzz ok, here we go

orignal yes?

zzz in current SSU 1 code, we send message 7 to wherever message 6 came from. The IP/port we put in message 7 is the ip/port we got message 6 from.

zzz so this could be different then where we sent message 5, or what we put in message 5.

zzz I don't believe this is documented in either SSU 1 or 2 specs

zzz but I think this matches what you're proposing for SSU 2

orignal I think AddressBlock shouldn't be required for 5

orignal the difference is

zzz what do you do in SSU 1 for message 7?

orignal you send Alice address anyway in Peer Test block

orignal sec

orignal LogPrint (eLogDebug, "SSU: Peer test from Alice. We are Charlie");

orignal SendPeerTest (nonce, senderEndpoint.address (), senderEndpoint.port (), introKey); // to Alice with her actual address

orignal message 7

zzz ok, so we both do the same thing for message 7 in SSU 1, correct?

orignal yes

zzz ok. So I'm going to document that better in the SSU 1 specs

zzz and it seems we should do the same thing in SSU 2

orignal and I send Alice's adress in msg 5 in SSU1

orignal no, my point is different

zzz so I don't think we need Address Block at all in 5/6/7 for SSU 2. Just put the address in the Peer Test block

orignal why should we send Alice's address twice in msg 5?

zzz agreed, let's get rid of it completely

orignal huh? I'm confused

zzz do we need address block in 6 or 7 either?

orignal you said PeerTest block should alway contain original Alice's

orignal because it's signed

zzz ok

zzz so address block in 7 only?

orignal no, also in 6

zzz ok, 6 and 7, but not 5. agreed.

orignal because Chrarlie is also instersted to know his own IP

orignal great

zzz will update the specs

zzz also need to fix my ssu 2 code

orignal I'm implementing PeerTest message that's why I'm asking

zzz yup

zzz does this sound right for the spec?

zzz * When sent by Charlie to Alice, the IP and port are as follows:

zzz First time (message 5): The requested IP and port as received in message 2.

zzz Second time (message 7): The actual IP and port message 6 was received from.

zzz ^^^ the SSU 1 spec

orignal yes

zzz I keep getting inbound SSU 1 connections from GG1SbAGFxD8riu9jow-WdSHHw6fvTp~oAYUYDRM4DTk= and the signature always fails

zzz can't lookup the RI either so I assume it can't sign it's RI either

orignal I think so too

zzz probably should ban the IP. can't ban the hash, it could be faked

orignal why do you care?

orignal does it consume too much CPU?

zzz he is persistent. just thinking about ways to make the network better

dr|z3d if the router's bad, blacklist the ip and the hash.

zzz like I said, can't do hash, it could be faked

zzz whups

zzz 0) Hi

zzz hi

eyedeekay Meeting today?

eyedeekay hi

orignal hi

zlatinb hi

zzz was staring at logs

zzz what's on today's list?

eyedeekay I've got another go-i2p weekly update

orignal I think your relay status and my peer test status

zzz ok go-i2p is 1); relay and peer test is 2)

zzz anything else ?

orignal no

orignal I was not involved in anuthing else

zzz 1) go-i2p status

eyedeekay Top billing lol, copypasta incoming

eyedeekay Last week I hit a few snags in using the refactored common library, which was to be expected

eyedeekay but it sort of proved that the motivation for the refactor was sound, because the issues while somewhat numerous were also more understandable and easier to address

eyedeekay A few things did get a little wierd, now the structures themselves need to keep track of the errors encountered when parsing them

eyedeekay Whether that behavior remains consistent or becomes unnecessary as I start fitting the rest of the router together remains to be seen, there are some places in the code where the same slice of bytes used to be "validated" multiple times even though it has never changed

eyedeekay That same validation function now just checks for errors encountered the first time the structure was created, and I'm pretty sure it's now also obsolete, but I'll have to go through every usage to be sure

eyedeekay Hypothetically that sounds like it might be an efficiency gain in the long run, but it barely counts since it's not a real router yet

eyedeekay Just an example of some of the ups-and-downs of turning this into a usable router in practice, it's starting to get more fun and less like banging my head against a wall, which I always knew it eventually would

eyedeekay Also spent some time on the crypto, which is turning out to be less of a refactor and more of a just doing it

eyedeekay As you might know go-i2p was an incomplete 0.9.12~ish router when I picked it up, so everything is actually using the oldest of the old crypto, but there is partial implementation of some of the new crypto

eyedeekay The good news is that Go has pretty good support for modern cryptographic primitives as part of it's standard library, so what I have to do, basically, is just make the parts that aren't "standard"

eyedeekay There's also enough already there that it might be usable soon, if so I may move on to something else before I just power through all of them ahead of time

eyedeekay What's also a little confusing is where I might go next, though, I'm wondering "what do I have enough to *do* right now or in the near future"

eyedeekay If I don't answer that then I'm going to run out of things I know how to write tests for and get stuck again

eyedeekay I feel like the obvious thing I can do is reseed and populate a netDB which is why I am interested in using go-i2p libraries in reseed-tools

eyedeekay But following that logic my next leap is "build an exploratory tunnel" and there are definitely steps I need to complete before I can actually "do" that and I think those steps might put me into the weeds with implementing TBM's and updating I2NP at the same time while also not having a working transport

eyedeekay It has only stubs of transports which I've been reluctant to do before the refactor is done, now that I don't have that excuse anymore I'm thinking that maybe I should dive into NTCP2 next, and decide which crypto I focus on based on the needs of NTCP2, which sounds more like doing something

eyedeekay In summary, I have been 1) Shoring up a few in-practice issues in the common lib, 2) figuring out what crypto I need that I don't have and how to implement it and 3) deciding where I go next

eyedeekay EOT

zzz zowie, lets's pause 3 minutes to read

orignal so what do you have so far?

orignal a transport? crypto? netdb?

orignal IPNP messages?

orignal how about tunnels?

eyedeekay I have crypto and part of a netDB, an incomplete I2NP implementation an incomplete TBM/VTBM implementation and I think that is it

orignal how about garlic for ratchets?

orignal what crypto do you support so far?

eyedeekay I have ecdsa and ed25519 so far of the modern crypto

orignal what about encryption?

orignal zzz, btw I think time to talk about tunnels encryption

eyedeekay Just a sec, lost my window

orignal chhcha20 instead AES

orignal because people are asking

zzz eyedeekay, based on the status I think you might be looking for advice? you have a couple of short questions for us?

orignal thinking that AES-CBC is ugly and obsolete

zzz ok tunnel encryption is topic 3), stand by

eyedeekay AES and RSA are still incomplete in go-i2p but I'm going to do them next

orignal RSA? no it's not used in i2p

orignal excepting for reseeds

orignal how about chacha20 and AEAD?

eyedeekay There is no implementation of them in go-i2p yet

eyedeekay I know i'll need them for transports though which

orignal then you need to obtain them somehow

orignal because even NTCP2 uses them

eyedeekay Yeah that's what I'm working on soon

orignal basically chacha20 is used everywhere

zzz eyedeekay, are you asking for advice on what to do next?

eyedeekay I'm doing the "low-level crypto specification" at the moment but it's a big update

orignal even for STBM

orignal I recoomend to start with STBM then VTBM

eyedeekay Yes, basically, should I do tunnel build message or should I try and do a transport

orignal VTBM is rarely used now

orignal up to you

eyedeekay orignal says VTBM and STBM, which was one of my possibles

orignal STBM is more important now

orignal and you do need chacha20 for it

zzz eyedeekay, I suggest NTCP2, because you can't test anything until you have a transport. And NTCP2 is *much* easier than SSU2, and SSU 1 is going away so don't bother

eyedeekay Then I'll try and do that after I get the crypto primitives

orignal also once you implement NTCP2 you will have all crytto needed for other protocols

zzz once you have a transport, bug hunting is much easier

eyedeekay NTCP2, that is, since tunnel build messages don't look hard

zzz unless you love love love writing unit tests all day, but even then you can't be sure you got the tests right

orignal tunnel build message is harderst part I would sat

orignal because it's real garlic encryption

eyedeekay Yeah that's what I'm trying to not do for at least part of my day now

zzz ratchet is even harder

eyedeekay NTCP2 it is then

orignal ofc ratchets is harderset part but it's another level

zzz you don't really need to build tunnels to be a router

orignal eyedeekay if you want you can take psi's chacha20 implemntation but it's slow

orignal github.com/PurpleI2P/i2pd/blob/openssl/libi2pd/ChaCha20.cpp

zzz I'm sure there's a thousand chacha impls out there. eyedeekay just be sure to keep track of licensing for anything you take

eyedeekay Might try but I'm trying to do it in pure-Go so I can take advantage of the cross compiler

orignal this one decribes the logic

zzz orignal, you know anybody that might want to help?

orignal can be easily rewtitten to go

orignal a go developer?

zzz yes

orignal no

eyedeekay I'll have a look at it then, always worth reading

zlatinb psi himself if he's still into it

orignal he is into his lokinet only

zzz ok, once you have a transport things will be much more fun

zzz anything else on 1) ?

eyedeekay Nothing else here

orignal kovrik was over on that stage ))

orignal no

zzz 2) relay and peer test status

zzz I'll let you go first orignal

orignal so Alice sends initial peer test, Bob is able to process it and send "no chrlie" response back

orignal I run SSU2 peer test together with SSU test now

orignal so you should see incoming SSU2 sessions from time to time

zzz I haven't looked in the logs for peer test in a couple days, I'll do that and report back later

orignal will finish Bob and Cgharlie part in few day and start publishing code

zzz ok

zzz for me on relay, I've been working on Bob and Charlie sides. I am publishing SSU2 introducers sometimes. Actually publishing duplicates, need to fix that

zzz I don't think I've received a relay intro yet. Need to check the logs and report back

orignal how do you publish them?

orignal e.g. how do we differentiate SSU1 and SSU2 introducers

zzz according to the spec? what do you mean?

orignal no in your SSU address

orignal I hope you don't share them

orignal e.g. ih and ihost in the same introducer

zzz here's an example

zzz [caps] = [B6]

zzz [i] = [GrQCg6lOyqL9xrjJBY-1sob~jifxg-fFhdp-~HDLJo4=]

zzz [iexp0] = [1654536925]

zzz [iexp1] = [1654536925]

zzz [iexp2] = [1654538776]

zzz [ih2] = [2RRYXk4DLmwmsCwDaFcN1u88XPStZiIAi3eNGFMGyJI=]

zzz [ihost0] = [2001:41d0:401:3100:0:0:0:3d0e]

zzz [ihost1] = [51.255.171.145]

zzz [ikey0] = [PHgAFJrpQlx7TTfEfz4UbgFHcj~F7moX38ha7ufeSmM=]

zzz [ikey1] = [b6oql~pLDBmhfyD20NNUK3Ct3fwlfQaUkMpQP-sG~lU=]

zzz [iport0] = [28761]

zzz [iport1] = [28761]

zzz [itag0] = [562393646]

zzz [itag1] = [562393646]

zzz [itag2] = [3696570889]

zzz [key] = [gE9Cz8ygNv20J6Ml8LHmQj54Q8fABtTLXZaSVyE1STk=]

zzz [s] = [O7EzKQpOIQffYq5jX4ZmeyYXncw2Zou3ad60Kgx1cD4=]

zzz [v] = [2]]

zzz does that look right?

orignal so 2 is SSU2

orignal yes

orignal no mixed instridcers

orignal that's what I mean

zzz yes I'm putting the SSU2 ones last so I don't confuse old routers

zzz good

orignal I mean I don't see ihost0 and ih0

orignal together

zzz correct

orignal fine

orignal will check my code to make sure I read them right

zzz have some test code in there to prefer ssu2 to publish, that's helping get thigns tested

zzz here's an all-ssu2 example (with a duplicate bug)

zzz [caps] = [B6]

zzz [i] = [GrQCg6lOyqL9xrjJBY-1sob~jifxg-fFhdp-~HDLJo4=]

zzz [iexp0] = [1654540525]

zzz [iexp1] = [1654538776]

zzz [iexp2] = [1654540525]

zzz [ih0] = [nYlJtl83P131x6760bTAm2wKN7s6XYi9HbyYO4OllX0=]

zzz [ih1] = [2RRYXk4DLmwmsCwDaFcN1u88XPStZiIAi3eNGFMGyJI=]

zzz [ih2] = [2RRYXk4DLmwmsCwDaFcN1u88XPStZiIAi3eNGFMGyJI=]

zzz [itag0] = [1383980634]

zzz [itag1] = [3696570889]

zzz [itag2] = [3696570889]

zzz need to fix that

zzz baby steps

zzz anything else on 2) ?

orignal no

zzz 3) tunnel encryption

orignal people say that AES-CBC is obsolete crap

zzz are the people right?

orignal and since we have that field we can switch to chacha20

orignal idk

zzz well, that's the first thing to answer :)

orignal but AES is really obsolete now

zzz you're talking "layer encryption", right?

orignal yes

zzz just looking at the old proposals

orignal the problem was how we encrypt nonce

orignal if we want to keep double encryption

zzz prop. 157 new tbm says that changing layer encryption was a non-goal

zzz and it points to chisana's proposal 153

orignal we agreed to come back to it later

orignal when worked on STBM

zzz yup

orignal just reserved a field for it

orignal my problem is low class devices

orignal without AESNI

orignal chacha20 is much faster there

zzz well, if SSU2 doesn't kill me, it can be on the list to look at

zzz AES is so fast though, even without NI

orignal remeber after switching to SSU2, tunnel encryption will remain only place with AES

zzz PQC also might be on the list

orignal it's faster but chacha20 is much faster

orignal we don't have PQC anywhere

zzz not sure the speed of any symmetric crypto really matters

orignal while chacha20 is everywhere

orignal it matters because it's called a lot

zzz you have any estimate of what % of CPU is AES (non NI) ?

orignal I did

orignal but I need to run test on arm

orignal becasue chacha20 on Intel uses SSE

zzz well then if you want to look into it, we have the todo list:

zzz 1) is AES crap or not? 2) speed test data; 3) reread prop. 153

orignal 1. not crap ofc

orignal just not the best symmetric crypto

zzz *obsolete crap ))

orignal also from practice

zzz FYI I've started a PQC thread on my forum; eyedeekay is helping out

orignal NTCP2 is much faster and consumes less CPU than SSU1

eyedeekay Doing the best I can, mostly way over my head still

orignal I saw it

zzz over my head too, I'm faking it

zzz anyway, if the worst crypto we use is AES, we're in pretty good shape

orignal that's true

orignal after switch to SSU2

zzz yup

orignal ofc the worst is DH now

zzz let's keep helping people enable SSU2 for testing, because we don't really have enough for good relay and peer test testing

orignal I'm jus looking forward

orignal NTCP2 was really great performance improvement

zzz sure, good to have a list of what's next

orignal you will have more peer tests soon

zzz ok, I'll report when I see things, good or bad

zzz anything else on 3) ?

orignal no

zzz anything else for the meeting?

orignal zlatinb what are you plans?

orignal regarding I2P

zlatinb well, need to find someone to maintain muwire ideally

orignal when?

zlatinb but there's time, 1-2 years at least

orignal good to know

zzz in two years please find a replacement for me too

orignal why?

orignal also want to become monk?

zzz getting old

orignal and?

orignal not so old, dude

zzz lol we'll see

zzz anything else for the meeting?

orignal no

zzz ok thanks everybody

eyedeekay Thanks zzz

zzz eyedeekay, re: crypto, I'd add support as needed for whatever subsystem. I wouldn't just run down the checklist and do it all

zzz like if you skipped ECDSA and DSA it wouldn't really matter

orignal ECDSA matters

orignal it's used a lot

orignal especially P256

orignal also mind yubikeys

orignal they offer ECDSA only

eyedeekay Well ecdsa was the most-done of what I inherited so I'll probably need to work on it a little, but otherwise I'll implement what I need as I need it

eyedeekay And DSA was done, at least to the extent that it needed to be done to be used in what existed

orignal DSA is deprecated and should be removed completely

orignal asso ECDSA is used for families

orignal only P256 if I remember

zzz true

zzz but in general pick the latest flavor of everything, you can always go back and add older flavors later

eyedeekay Can do

orignal I don't remeber if you support 25519 for families

zzz I can verify them but it's a little shaky to generate them

zzz my test router is 25519 family

zzz eyedeekay, can you generate a router ident and generate and sign a RI?

orignal I support p256 only

orignal where is your cert?

orignal need to check

orignal maybe I should add 25519

eyedeekay I haven't signed a routerinfo yet but I can generate them

zzz i2p-dev-eddsa is the family

zzz a routerinfo is signed so that's part of the generation, technically speaking

orignal will check

zzz you'll need that for NTCP2

orignal NTCP2 itself doesn't verify signatures btw

orignal he deosn't need to for NTCP2

orignal only when we receive RouterInfo

eyedeekay I might be able to sign them, I don't have a unit test for it yet but I'll know once I write it

zzz you have to check the sig in the RI that's in the handshake in message 3

orignal you should

orignal but you don't have to sign anything

zzz you really really should :)

orignal well you must send you RI

zzz if you're alice you have to sign the RI before you send it

orignal or I can read my signed RI for a file

zzz eyedeekay, have you read the noise spec yet?

orignal I mean signning is not part of NTCP2 or SSU2 protocol

zzz orignal, you're right, strictly speaking

orignal I wouldn't recoomend to read whole Noise

orignal worthless

orignal you only need to know about ck and h

orignal ck is for encryption

orignal h is for verification

orignal and must be updated after every operation

zzz well, it's not worthless at all, but it is difficult

orignal initialized by some initial value

eyedeekay I have read the noise spec, also been studying a Go implementation of Noise which I will probably be basing mine on

orignal but you don't need to understand Noise to start using in I2P

orignal we need only small part of it

zzz it's not essential but if you're the kind of person who wants to understand things top-down, you'll need it

zzz if you just want to implement, you can skip it, sure

zzz XK vs IK vs N is helpful

orignal I'm suggesting parctical approach

orignal what you really need to make things working

eyedeekay I have to do both. I get stuck on equations and proofs and formulas and specifications if I don't have someplace to get my hands dirty, but if I don't read the details I don't really understand things.

zzz eyedeekay, one thing to know about our NTCP2 spec - it was our first noise protocol - it's written at a lower level than the later protocols, where we defined more intermediate primitives like mixhash()

orignal you don't need equitions and formulas

orignal unless you want to implemnt something own

orignal like I did own EdDSA

zzz yeah but he's the one going to conferences, helps to know enough to explain things to others or give a talk

orignal рф рф

orignal ha ha

orignal I just remebered another funny thing

orignal RedDSA

zzz just know it took us months to really understand it. str4d kinda rammed it down our throats and it took me quite a while to catch up

orignal eyedeekay does golang support reddsa?

orignal I doubt

orignal and RedDSA is used for encrypted leasesets

orignal that are used more and more

zzz not unless str4d did it for zcash

orignal zcash uses rust not go

zzz true

zzz orignal, here's my cert: stats.i2p/docs/i2p-dev-eddsa.crt

orignal thanks

orignal will try when have time

orignal to extract public key from it

zzz sure, only one member of family, so doesn't matter

orignal if I remeber golang has curve25519 package

zzz did it years ago

orignal but for reddsa it will require own implemnetation of signing schema

eyedeekay Also describing this learning process is significant in and of itself at least to me.

eyedeekay I have not experienced clear delineations between engineering disciplines, just self-taught, so part of this project for me is figuring out the way for disgruntled 30something ex-psychology majors to put the pieces together and do something useful with their lives

eyedeekay Yes to curve25519, no to RedDSA but I can at least read str4d's rust implementation and imitate it

orignal RedDSA is complicated even with curve

orignal need to take care about some modules, etc.

zzz yeah it's a little messy, I'm still not sure str4d knew what he was doing

orignal it's clear for me how it works

orignal just needs to be careful

eyedeekay zlatinb I stickied your seeking maintainer announcement on reddit, hopefully that keeps the attention on it for a while

zlatinb thanks eyedeekay

eyedeekay no problem

zlatinb speaking of reddit, do you want to mention MoneroKon?

eyedeekay Oh right yeah I'll do that

zlatinb can crosspost in r/monero too

eyedeekay Will do

zzz zlatinb, confirming I am adding the deadlock detector to routerconsole.jar, using three java.lang.management classes

zlatinb ok

zlatinb doesn't impact the mac bundle, but it may the windows one

zlatinb idk whether that's jlinked or just includes everything

zzz ^^ eyedeekay

zzz those classes are just interfaces and factories, beats me where the implementation is

zlatinb somewhere under com.sun probably

zlatinb but it should be in the module

eyedeekay Windows one just bundles everything

zzz zlatinb, fyi the module is java.management

zzz *javax.management

zzz *java.management

zlatinb long ago I added a deadlock detector to LimeWire. Formatting the stack traces was a mess but it was still useful to have it

zzz yeah the one in a million things should get easier to find

zzz pretty easy with what's in the jvm now

zlatinb eyedeekay: ok to crosspost your post in r/monero ?

zlatinb too late :)

eyedeekay Thanks

zzz eyedeekay, zlatinb, re: reddit is 1000 dests practical? the answer is no. done and done.

zzz your answers focused on the network effects but the local router would croak too

zzz java router limits to 100