#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 proposal review channel : Reviews Tuesdays 7 PM UTC: none scheduled

zzz orignal, R4SAS, stormycloud is having trouble with their i2pd routers being ipv6-firewalled

zzz about half of them are... all in the same datacenter

zzz they don't think they are actually firwalled

zzz maybe it's because older java releases are banning them? or maybe not? any ideas?

zzz but ipv4 seems fine

zzz orignal, I started getting some termination blocks from i2pd last night. outbound sessions only, ipv6 only

orignal it's known issue

orignal false statement

orignal ipv6 shows firewalled

orignal nothing to worry

StormyCloud Is there a way to verify ipv6 is working correctly? About half of our routers are not showing an IPv6 in the SSU field

zzz how can StormyCloud configure to force ipv6 non-firewalled?

orignal the problem is with older Java release that publish they are capable for peer test

orignal but actually the are not

orignal hit Run peer test from the web console

orignal StormyCloud it's just an issue with SSU ipv6 peer test

zzz is there a fix available where you don't use old java peers ? or is there a config setting ?

orignal zzz and no I didn't change anything in termination logic yet

orignal no

orignal but for me it's not a big issue

orignal if ipv4 is good

zzz the thing is, they have 75 floodfills over there, and they're not working that great. should they just disable ipv6?

orignal I think it's different issue

orignal if they are not working great it means ipv4 is not working great

orignal ipv6 has less impact in this case

zzz in java we have a setting i2np.ipv6.firewalled=false to force non-firewalled

orignal I don't have this option yet

orignal it's the first time I hear about it

orignal they can try to diable ipv6 but I doubt it would help a lot

zzz the thing is, we prefer v6 over v4, so it's hurting latency for ff lookups. Also, since the routers are flip/flopping between firewalled and not, I think that's what makes them less reliable

zzz not 100% sure though

orignal let them disable ipv6 then

orignal for this release

orignal SSU is end-of-life anyway

orignal and SSU2 works right

zzz sure but when firewalled then they don't publish NTCP2 address either

orignal also be aware about major internet outage in Canada

orignal but they still publish ipv4 NTCP2

orignal hence i2pd will pick it

zzz the v6 issues have been like this for months, they are just getting to investigate it

orignal since ipv6 is not reachable by NTCP2

zzz they also have a java router in the DC, and we are trying to figure out if it's a real ipv6 problem or not

orignal months?)) I would say more than an year

orignal and it's known issue

zzz ok good to know. stormy hasn't been around a year :)

orignal huh? telnet to NTCP2 ip:port

orignal from outside

zzz yeah I tried that, it worked.

zzz but I didn't know if they had intermittent problems

orignal then it's this false alaram

orignal me too

orignal I thought it's not a big deal to worry about

StormyCloud no intermittent problems here :P

orignal so be aware that 2/3 of Canada is without Internat now

zzz maybe not a big deal. But it confused us as we're trying to figure out why the java router over there was having problems

zzz StormyCloud, is the java router in your DC up? I don't see it any more

zzz lucky you're in the good 1/3

StormyCloud Yes, it is the outproxy is running java

zzz that's the one that I couldn't reach the other day, and I still can't. Can't even find the RI

orignal also FYI after that fix with 65 SSU2 peer test is almost 100% correct

zzz re: 65, great

orignal I run a router without SSU

orignal and network status comes from SSU2

orignal last peer test 10 minutes agot

orignal 10:10:32@269/debug - SSU2: PeerTest msg=5 code=0

orignal 10:10:32@269/debug - SSU2: PeerTest msg=4 code=0

orignal 10:10:32@269/debug - SSU2: PeerTest msg=7 code=0

dr|z3d zzz: you're looking for routerid -Ym2 (or perhaps another, I think stormy's got 2 up right now?)

zzz yeah the two not in their DC seem to be fine. I was having zero luck with a 3rd one in their DC

orignal the most popular error code is 68 now ))

zzz dr|z3d, and that's what sent us down a ipv6 rabbit hole

dr|z3d hmm.. if the 3rd one is on the same ip range as Tor exits, that of itself might be causing connectivity issues. dunno, but what I do know is that Tor's been on the receiving end of a protracted DDOS for the last few weeks..

zzz StormyCloud told me it was ready for testing, I started testing, and the one at jZwr was a total fail

dr|z3d not sure which one that was, maybe the azure based one.. that had some issues with ipv6 unrelated to java.

dr|z3d if it was that one, it's been retired from service anyways.

zzz ok. all I know is StormyCloud asked me to start testing and I did. If one of the multihomes was a zombie, that should have been addressed first

zzz because we've been down that rabbithole for a couple days, wasting time

zzz you can't try to run a reliable service on a flaky router, and definitely not if zero-hop

zzz the problematic one was jZwr on 22.x.x.x

zzz *23.x.x.x

StormyCloud My apologies I did not realize ipv6 was an issue when we deployed the third server

zzz any connectivity flakiness is going to be fatal with 0-hop

StormyCloud Well 144x machines are fine

orignal also you should enable ipv6 in i2pd's config only when you know that it work

orignal that's why it's off by default

StormyCloud There are no issues with IPv6 on the I2PD router flee

StormyCloud fleet*

orignal i2pd also support links over yggdrasil

orignal just FYI

zzz ok so in summary, DC ipv6 is fine, i2pd v6 peer test is flaky, the bad outproxy in the DC is removed, the other two outproxies should be good, we can continue testing

zzz right?

orignal I think so

StormyCloud Correct

zzz great, thanks for the help orignal

orignal anyway my goal is to have an option to replace SSU but SSU2 for the next release

orignal to resolve all these issues

zlatinb is there a plan for the rollout of SSU2? What will be enabled by default in 1.9.0?

orignal my plan is to replace it if ssu if not enabled explicitly

zzz zlatinb, we haven't decided yet, it really depends on how reliable it gets in the next month

zlatinb I will bundle 1.9.0 with the Q3 release of MuWire (~2 months after release) so that should be plenty of time to decide whether to enable SSU2

zzz the current schedule is to enable it in 1.10.0 in November

zzz I'm thinking a middle ground would be to enable it for say 10% of the routers

zzz we really need to focus on fixing any basic data transfer issues in the next month

zzz and I think I'm going to propose adding an ack-immediate flag to get the speed up

orignal I always use "ack-immidiate"

orignal I send ack after each batch of message if there is something in it

zzz what's a batch? one packet?

orignal no

orignal I read a packet then check if more packets in the socket

orignal I keep reading then while they are for the same enpoint

orignal or not more packets

zzz is that the same as you did for SSU 1?

orignal it's batch

orignal yes

orignal and I send Ack after each batch, not packet

zzz have you studied how efficient that is compared to delayed ack? I really think delayed ack would be better

orignal my point is

orignal due the nature of I2P most likely it's one way communication

orignal and no worth to not do batching

orignal all high-load apps do it

zlatinb batching makes sense ofc

zzz true, but it's still not efficient to send a lot of tiny ack packets

zzz we have a lot of success in streaming with delayed ack + an ack-immediate flag, that's why I'm going to recommend it here as well

orignal yes, delays ack maybe the next step

orignal it's just not implemnted

zzz it's also what we have in SSU 1

orignal streaming is usually 2-way communications

zzz I believe that SSU 2 is slower than 1 in my tests because we don't have the flag for 2

orignal while Transport is below tunnels

orignal we see SSU2 much faster that SSU1

zzz with 1-way communications, ack efficiency is much more important, because in 2-way it's often "free"

orignal <R4SAS> 2.5 средняя

orignal e.g. 2.5 Mbytes

orignal per sec

zzz testnet or live net?

orignal and I2P is mostly one way

orignal live

orignal client side zero hops

zzz with what RTT?

orignal server side 1 hops

orignal <R4SAS> средний RTT на 8 стримов ~130

zzz ok, one hop

zzz that's the streaming RTT or the SSU2 RTT or the ping time between the two routers?

orignal let him ask more

zzz 2.5 sounds pretty good :)

orignal not as good as 12 for NTCP2 ))

orignal but much better that SSU1

zlatinb time to implement the fancy window formulae :)

orignal yes

orignal I don't have window yet

orignal well I do

orignal but it's 128 packets for now

zlatinb I was thinking in the future we could use a predictor for the delayed ack value

zlatinb start with 0 and based on the batch patterns fine tune

orignal maybe

zzz what we're doing now on the java side for ssu 1 and 2 is working well, but it can be improved with an ack-immediate flag and a max # of pkts before acking

zzz I've been reading the QUIC guidance

zzz you don't want to ack too many pkts at once because that leads to bursty transmissions at the other end unless there's metering

zzz and we don't do metering

zzz never have

zzz and no round-robin in the throttler either

orignal there is a lot of room to improve

orignal but even now my SSU2 is better than SSU1

zzz w00t, now persisting tokens across restarts