@eyedeekay
&eche|on
&zzz
+Irc2PGuest59158
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+cumlord
+eche|off
+mareki2p
+orignal
+postman
+qend-irc2p
+snex
+weko
Arch
Birdy
BubbRubb
Chrono
Danny
DeltaOreo
FreefallHeavens
Irc2PGuest10260
Irc2PGuest23695
Irc2PGuest26179
Irc2PGuest49308
Irc2PGuest51542
Onn4l7h
Over
Sleepy
SlippyJoe
StormyCloud
T3s|4_
Teeed
aargh2
ac9f
acetone_
b3t4f4c3___
bak83_
dr4wd3
duanin2
eyedeekay_bnc
idk_afk2
leopold
leopold_
nilbog
not_bob_afk
poriori_
profetikla
r00tobo_BNC
rapidash
solidx66_
uop23ip
w8rabbit
x74a6
xHarr
y2kboy239
obscuratus
eyedeekay: PeerSelector is a more involved issue than I first appreciated.
obscuratus
I was reviewing the FloodFillPeerSelector class, and I couldn't see anywhere where it understood how to use any other netDb except for the primary floodfill netdb.
obscuratus
On the plus side, things seem to work OK dispite this being somewhat borked.
obscuratus
We may need to pivot to something like relying on trip-wires for RI coming in the Inbound Message Distributor.
obscuratus
As a work-around, on my testing network, it wouldn't be difficult at all to make sure the subDbs are populated exhaustively with every FF RI.
obscuratus
Or, maybe begin testing the nested netdbs without any RI at all, and make sure nothing breaks when we run that way.
obscuratus
I'm almost running that way now, with only the minimum 3 FF in each subdb.
eyedeekay
Thanks for the update, my next move will probably be in the direction of no RI's in subDb's first