#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 proposal review channel

zzz is there anything you can do in i2pd to make sure SSU gets more testing? this isn't the first SSU problem. Remember when you were dropping after 5 seconds?

zzz you should use outbound SSU for some % of connections to make sure it's always being tested

orignal maybe

zzz how are we going to ever be sure i2pd SSU2 works if it's not ever "preferred" ?

orignal but you always know that SSU in i2pd is shitty and slow

orignal SSU2 yes

zzz use it anyway, so it gets better

orignal I'm going to implement properly

orignal while fixing SSU in i2pd is worse than rewrite it completely

zzz ok

orignal also I do use SSU

orignal 1. after peertest I have some SSU connections

orignal and reuse them

orignal 2. Incoming connection if firewalled

orignal an IB comes through SSU ofc

orignal one sec

zzz that's all I have for 2)

zlatinb I have more

orignal I give some data

zzz go ahead

zlatinb we need to come up with some preventative masures for the future, and I think testnet suite is it

zlatinb like decide on minimum number of tests before a new release

zlatinb I'm happy to do them

orignal SSU ( 824 )

zlatinb like building tunnels, no tunnel test failures, simple file transfer, etc.

orignal SSUv6 ( 146 )

orignal that's FF

orignal number of sessions

orignal so SSU it not so rare in i2pd

orignal NTCP2 ( 1955 )

orignal olle 2 times less

orignal 2.5

zlatinb without tests like this the problem can happen again

orignal and I also have 5) for today

orignal number of routers in netdb

zzz ok then let's wrap up 2)

zzz zlatinb, that's a great suggestion to do mixed testnet testing

orignal so what's the problem

orignal yes I agree

orignal before I had around 5K routers on FF

orignal and 8K now

zzz we're still on 2)

zzz anything else on 2) ?

orignal fine

orignal no

zlatinb I'll come up with a list of test cases

zzz sounds good zlatinb

zlatinb and put on wiki somewhere

zlatinb eot on 2)

zzz 3) SSU2 coding status

zzz as I said, I got a basic handshake and data phase working

zzz not all according to the spec, some things are stubbed out

zzz test code only

zzz orignal, what's your status?

orignal ok

orignal I have started with Noise

orignal than with RouterInfo and data structures for addresses

orignal now implementing SessionRequest send and receive

orignal that's all

orignal hope to finish handshake by the end of this week

zzz as I said, the header encryption and header protection need to change. For now, you can follow what's in the spec, or just don't do it at all

zzz I hope to fix it up in the next week

zzz and hope to be ready for testing with you in 3-4 weeks, as promised

zzz I'm also making fixes to the proposal almost every day

orignal good

zzz anything else on 3) ?

zzz 4) release schedule

zzz we plan to release in two weeks, feb. 21

zzz what about i2pd?

orignal fine

orignal we can do it

zzz the earlier the better to get the fix out there

zzz eyedeekay1, what did you have for this topic?

R4SAS fine, but depending on situation maybe I'll want to start it on 20th

orignal 20th is also fine ))

zzz I'd be happy if you released today, but I know you have your own processes and schedules

zlatinb I want to run some basic tests in a mixed testnet after checkin deadlines, testing final code for both i2p and i2pd

zlatinb I want at least one day for that

orignal I don't want to mark it as 0.9.53

R4SAS 2 weeks ahead, so you won't know what will happen))

eyedeekay1 I didn't have anything specific to the topic that applies to everybody

eyedeekay1 But I was wondering if I should reach into the easy-install bundle router.config files and set router.disableTunnelTesting=false with the installer

zzz zlatinb, our checkin deadline will be Feb. 18, probably around noon eastern

eyedeekay1 No, right? Since the default has been changed?

zzz I do plan to leave tunnel testing enabled by default for the release, even though I do have code to not put i2pd .52 in tunnels

zzz I'm a little concerned about what it will do for conn limits though

zzz tunnel testing definitely isn't free

orignal don't do it all time

orignal do it once

eyedeekay1 Also it's kind of nasty to try and enable on Android without us having any UI for it, dev builds for Android are awesome right now but release builds are not

orignal after a tunnel was built

zzz 'doing it once' wouldn't catch a peer that only fails 5% of the time

orignal tunnel either works of not

orignal *or

orignal if not build a new tunnel instead

zzz so you're saying the bug is 100% of the time?

zzz I'm confused

orignal peer fails but not session

zzz we don't ever fail a tunnel after one failed test

orignal I mean if session fails it fails for good until recreated

zzz I've enhanced a lot of the testing to find bad peers, and made netdb lookups and stores more flexible also

zzz so hopefully the network will get better quickly after the release

orignal my point is even a single peer test is enough

zzz I'm talking tunnel tests

zzz that go through two tunnels

zzz that's 6 routers to blame

zzz anyway, we're far off the topic of 4)

zzz anything else on 4) ?

zzz 5) number of routers in netdb

orignal 5k before and 8K now

orignal I think it's nothing but waste of memory

orignal we should change the algorithm

zzz what you keep and what you don't is implementation-dependent, up to you

orignal no

orignal I use your cleanup algorithm

orignal and I think you see the same picture

zzz I have 3500 on a non-ff and 5200 on a ff right now

zzz you can use the same algorithm but tweak the parameters

zzz or change the algorithm. or cache them on disk and flush out of memory

zzz whatever you want

zzz "5K before" before what?

orignal before recently

orignal before Tor in Russia

orignal literally

orignal FF doesn't have an algorithm

orignal just 1 hour

zzz I haven't seen such a big increase here

orignal strange

zzz so make it half an hour

orignal maybe it's might be my problem only

zzz also, don't do exploration on ffs

zzz no need

orignal Routers: 4936

orignal not-FF

orignal good point

orignal will change the code to not explore on FF

zzz another thing that helps is sending netdb responses out exploratory tunnels, so you don't have a million connections to other people's IBGWs

zzz that you have to look up

zzz and also rerouting responses to a different tunnel

zlatinb zzz, orignal: git.idk.i2p/i2p-hackers/i2p.i2p/-/wikis/I2P-I2Pd-interoperability-testnet-scenarios

zzz getting late, anything else on 5) ?

orignal no

orignal and I have to run

orignal talk later

zzz ok, good meeting, later

zzz thanks zlatinb will take a look tomorrow