zzz
0) Hi
zzz
hi
eyedeekay
hi
zlatinb
hi
zzz
what's on the list for today?
orignal
hi
orignal
SSU2 status I guess
orignal
I will be back in 5 minutes
zzz
ok that's 1)
orignal
please start without me
zzz
ok
zzz
eyedeekay, you have any go router update for us? been a while
zzz
or anything else for the agenda?
eyedeekay
No I keep trying to get back to it and getting distracted
eyedeekay
Also I had a bug across all my plugins I needed to fix
eyedeekay
But I do have a small update on the Wikimedia thing
zzz
so it's not dead, you still intend to get it going?
eyedeekay
Yeah not dead, I still open it most days to try and get it moving
eyedeekay
But I'm just a little bogged down, it's my own fault
zzz
ok, I know it's hard, but you have to work faster than the rest of us or you'll just fall further behind the current specs, unfortunately
zzz
whats the news on wiki?
eyedeekay
Well I've been picking apart the data I'm getting about blocks and I notice a few interesting things
eyedeekay
The most significant of which is that while the total number of banned routers in my netDB rises and falls, the number of them that are blocked for the "P2P VPN" thing remains pretty constant
eyedeekay
Contrary to my early testing, I'm observing shared hosting bans overtaking P2P VPN bans all the time
zzz
what do you conclude from that?
eyedeekay
So my hypothesis that it's enumeration related seems shakier now
eyedeekay
Because shared hosting bans are legitimate
eyedeekay
So I can only think of a couple things
orignal
back
eyedeekay
One is that there's an overlap of I2P users and "P2P VPN" users which according to their somewhat superficial definition is a VPN that enlists users to be exits
eyedeekay
Or there's a "P2P VPN" of this nature that is using I2P that we don't know about it
eyedeekay
I think #2 is unlikely
eyedeekay
But I'm struggling for alternatives
eyedeekay
If it's #1 then it's a non-issue and I just learned a little
zzz
ok, so still haven't seen any reason to panic then
eyedeekay
Yeah I'm less worried than I was two weeks ago by alot
zzz
great, thanks for the update
zzz
back to 1) SSU2
zzz
I'll give my status
zzz
pretty quiet. still fixing minor bugs
zzz
I evaluated all the session confirmed fragmentation options from last week and recommended c)
zzz
orignal gave his preliminary agreement
zzz
I wrote it up in the proposal under a new section "session confirmed fragmentation"
zzz
and waiting for review and comments before I push code to implement it
zzz
EOT
orignal
yes it works
zzz
sorry, what works?
orignal
so I have finished Bob's side of handashke
orignal
connection
orignal
I though you meant session agreement ))
orignal
nevermind
zzz
yes, great, we now have java/i2pd connections working both directions
zzz
steady progress
zzz
any other status from you orignal ?
orignal
so I have implemted acks
orignal
for receiveing side
orignal
need to do it for sending
orignal
fragmentation for receiveing side
orignal
and working and sending side
orignal
and going to start peertest
orignal
I think we can be ready for SSU2 for the next release
zzz
before peer test, higher priority is the session confirmed fragmentation, because that's a problem now
orignal
btw, that Kirov's guy has conntacted with me
zzz
so if you would please review the new section of the spec, then we can get to implementation
zzz
yeah I saw the AAAAA is gone
orignal
no problem witll start it
orignal
yes, I instructed him
zzz
first, just looking for an ACK from you that the spec looks good
orignal
not really
orignal
my acks are dumb
orignal
need to implemented it better
zzz
sorry, I didn't mean ACK, I mean please review the spec for session confirmed fragmentation and tell me you like it )))))
orignal
oh, you mean session confirmed frgmentation
orignal
yes I see
zzz
lol
orignal
I will take a look today
zzz
my fault, shouldn't be using "ACK" in a sentence
zzz
super
orignal
no problem with it
orignal
I would say "approval" or "confirmation"
zzz
yes )))
orignal
we don't have word "ack" in Russian
zzz
not really a word in English either
zzz
anything else on 1) SSU2 ?
orignal
do you think we will be ready for the next release?
orignal
with SSU2?
zzz
probably not? the schedule shows 3 releases from now, in November. I don't think I can enable it by default next release
zzz
maybe the one after
orignal
not by deafault ofc
orignal
just optional support
orignal
to make thak Kirov guy happy ))
zzz
well, as not-default, it's in the code now. The only question is how much we advertise it
orignal
for me side it's not done yet
zzz
I'm not taking it out of the code, so people can do what they want
zzz
I think the big milestone for the next release is we freeze the basic protocol, can't make any breaking changes
orignal
I mean to decalre if it's supported in the release notes
orignal
then not do it for now
zzz
"alpha", "beta", "supported", .... just a word, decide later
orignal
fine
orignal
also R4SAS would like to run a stress test over SSU2
orignal
vs. NTCP2
zzz
yeah, I've run on testnet with 5% drop probability and still gotten 1 MBps I think, can't remember for sure
zzz
will have to go back and retest at some point
orignal
yes
orignal
but 1Mbps is slow
orignal
we need more
zzz
not with 5% drop it's not. 5% drop is insanely bad
orignal
got it
zzz
can't find my notes right now
orignal
also I need to implement retransmission windows and RTT
orignal
but that's another story
zzz
but yeah, testnet or live net, easy to do a test. Use zero-hop client and server side, disable NTCP2
orignal
that's what we usually do
zzz
anything else on 1) ?
orignal
no
zzz
anything else for the meeting?
orignal
not from my side
zzz
thanks everybody, back to work!