zlatinb
zzz: I'm having serious problems fetching zzz.i2p despite having a successful dbStore of leaseset in the logs
zlatinb
Leases: #1
zlatinb
[Lease:
zlatinb
End Date: Dec 23, 2021, 11:45 PM
zlatinb
Gateway: [Hash: fSYNpvQVLb-BA23mRaYYIvhC-jDBUDkjnGp18x1Vlis=]
zlatinb
which router isn't in the /netdb
zlatinb
another attempt, again one lease. Are you running zzz.i2p with a single tunnel?
RN
also having issues loading several sites including zzz, dr's comes up though, and not sure where to look for leasesets in logs
zlatinb
RN: add the following to the logger.config file:
zlatinb
logger.record.net.i2p.router.networkdb=DEBUG
zlatinb
logger.record.net.i2p.router.networkdb.kademlia=DEBUG
zlatinb
then in about 30 seconds the router will start logging the leaseset requests
zlatinb
whenever a successful leaseset gets fetched, there will be a multi-line entry starting with "Handling dbStore of leaseset"
zlatinb
it will contain the number of leases and the actual leases
zlatinb
for reference, the zzz.i2p b32 is lhbd7ojcaiofbfku7ixh47qj537g572zmhdc4oilvugzxdpdghua.b32.i2p
zzz
that's going to be an overwhelming amount of logging. Much easier to just look on the leasesets tab on /netdb in the console
orignal
I don't see EfRZwfOuyrNQMnnTcSogZ8NKeAP-q~zaqD9lJAb-DVs= on my floodfills
zzz
oh well
orignal
can you descritbe what you see?
orignal
duplicates? different adddresess?
zzz
I'm still seeing an enormous number of i2pd routers with no network ID and/or localhost addresses, most are .51 or .52
zzz
I think EfRZ had almost all addresses ::1
orignal
no network id means bad i2pd fork
orignal
because i2pd always adds netid
orignal
local address basically means Tor
orignal
some "very smart" guys do it
orignal
intead using SOCKs proxy
orignal
they forward traffic trougr iptables
zzz
found it in the logs. 2 SSU (one with introducers, one without, both port 0) and 10 NTCP2 (caps 4, no host)
zzz
all the NTCP2 ones were the same
orignal
I don't think it's real i2pd
orignal
also not sure what is better
orignal
to publish or not publish local address
zzz
I was being nice and just banning them for a little bit, but maybe I should go back and ban them until restart
zzz
or maybe based on version
zzz
what version did you fix it? a couple of years ago I think
orignal
spring 2021
orignal
for me it's not a problem
orignal
I just ignore extra addresses
orignal
and local
zzz
sure but I can't ignore no network ID
orignal
as I said
orignal
netid was always there from day one
orignal
i2pd never published without netid
zzz
ok
orignal
it can be zero
orignal
also I think I check netid for RouterInfo to see if it matches ours
orignal
and if not I drop it
orignal
also I'm thnking to redo addresses
orignal
always have 5 slots for each RI
orignal
each can be filled of empty
zzz
yeah I can't support ygg unless I redo addresses also
orignal
it's not about ygg
orignal
4 addresses in your case
orignal
also back to ygg
orignal
you don't need to support ygg in transports but why you can't pick ygg-only router for a tunnel?
orignal
e.g. tunnel A-B-C, B is ygg-only
orignal
and A and C also support ygg but also have ipv4
zzz
because my address code is such a huge mess
orignal
how do you check compatibility?
orignal
like if A and connect to B
orignal
*can
zzz
do I have a v4/v6 IP address, and is the IP in the peer's RI a valid public IP
orignal
then it's easy
orignal
when you check ipv6 check if both are in ygg range
orignal
in general I think to make it more genreic
orignal
e.g. address my belong to ranges we don't support yet
zzz
the problem is that deep in the code, each transport can only publish one v4 and one v6 address. That's why it's not easy
zzz
it would be a big refactor
orignal
so you have 4 fixed slots?
orignal
in your code
zzz
sort of like that. Really 2 per transport
orignal
in my opinion you should start refactoring it
orignal
because it's possible to have multiple ipv6 addresses anyway
zzz
sure. it's been a mess ever since we added ipv6
zlatinb
If you hate IDEs, wait till you see this: https://github.com/github/copilot.vim