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

zzz not clear if the question was for simultaneous though

eyedeekay My take was that even if the app sometimes needed up to 1000 identities where identity~=destination, it's unlikely that a real-world user would be contacting all those identities simultaneously

eyedeekay So smarter management may cut down on the real-world overhead

zzz looked at peer test logs where I'm Bob

zzz alice i2pd and charlie i2pd: success

zzz alice i2pd and charlie java: charlie code 67 sig fail

zzz so we both need to double check the spec

zzz and I'm going to add sig checking at Bob to help track it down

orignal will check

orignal I think it's relay request message

zzz my bug, I was using alice hash in sig, but that's only for msgs 3 and 4

zzz you're not handling it yet as charlie? it looked right to me

orignal signatures?

orignal one sec

zzz peer test

zzz Alice i2pd FJ-F

zzz Charlie i2pd IMQc

zzz ^^ this one worked

zzz 06-07 12:24:25.092 DEBUG [ handler 1/1] .transport.udp.PeerTestManager: Got peer test msg: 1 status: 0 hash: null nonce: 1495682559 time: Jun 7, 2022, 12:24 PM ip/port: 185.244.29.91:18443 from 185.244.29.91:18443 FJ-Fcd IB2 recvAge: 27s sendAge: 27s sendAttemptAge: 27s sendACKAge: 27s lifetime: 27s RTT: 35 RTO: 1000 cwin: 5263 acwin: 5263 SST: 524288 FRTX? false consecFail: 0 msgs rcvd: 1 msgs sent: 1 pkts rcvd

zzz OK/Dup: 3/0 pkts sent OK/Dup: 2/0 IBM: 0 OBQ: 0 OBL: 0 state: null

zzz 06-07 12:24:25.092 DEBUG [ handler 1/1] .transport.udp.PeerTestManager: Send Alice RI and msg 2 to charlie on PeerTest 1495682559 IPv4 started Jun 7, 2022, 12:24 PM as BOB; Alice: /185.244.29.91:18443 Charlie: /2001:470:28:2e3:f8c5:3e90:3366:1bcd:30305; last send after 0; rcvd from Alice after 0; pkts relayed: 0

zzz 06-07 12:24:25.156 DEBUG [ handler 1/1] .transport.udp.PeerTestManager: Got peer test msg: 3 status: 0 hash: null nonce: 1495682559 time: Jun 7, 2022, 12:24 PM ip/port: 185.244.29.91:18443 from [2001:470:28:2e3:f8c5:3e90:3366:1bcd]:30305 ImQCa~ OB2 recvAge: 7m sendAge: 7m sendAttemptAge: 64ms sendACKAge: 64ms lifetime: 65m RTT: 59 RTO: 1000 cwin: 3376 acwin: 2270 SST: 2560 FRTX? false consecFail: 0 msgs rcvd: 4 msgs

zzz sent: 127 pkts rcvd OK/Dup: 134/0 pkts sent OK/Dup: 132/2 IBM: 0 OBQ: 0 OBL: 1 theyRelayToUsAs: 825018819 state: PeerTest 1495682559 IPv4 started Jun 7, 2022, 12:24 PM as BOB; Alice: /185.244.29.91:18443 Charlie: /2001:470:28:2e3:f8c5:3e90:3366:1bcd:30305; last send after 0; rcvd from Alice after 0; pkts relayed: 0

zzz 06-07 12:24:25.156 DEBUG [ handler 1/1] .transport.udp.PeerTestManager: Send Charlie RI to alice on PeerTest 1495682559 IPv4 started Jun 7, 2022, 12:24 PM as BOB; Alice: /185.244.29.91:18443 Charlie: /2001:470:28:2e3:f8c5:3e90:3366:1bcd:30305; last send after 64; rcvd from Alice after 0; rcvd from Charlie after 64; pkts relayed: 0

zzz 06-07 12:24:25.156 DEBUG [ handler 1/1] .transport.udp.PeerTestManager: Send msg 4 to alice on PeerTest 1495682559 IPv4 started Jun 7, 2022, 12:24 PM as BOB; Alice: /185.244.29.91:18443 Charlie: /2001:470:28:2e3:f8c5:3e90:3366:1bcd:30305; last send after 64; rcvd from Alice after 0; rcvd from Charlie after 64; pkts relayed: 0

orignal no, peer test is not implemented yet

orignal if (!s.Verify (r->GetIdentity (), buf + 47 + asz))

orignal {

orignal LogPrint (eLogWarning, "SSU2: RelayIntro signature verification failed");

orignal return; // TODO: send relay response

orignal }

orignal if you are talking about signatures

zzz this is peer test. all I know is I was bob and had i2pd on both sides, messages 1-4.

orignal for relays

zzz but I didn't check signatures

orignal what are we talking about? relays or peer tests?

zzz peer test

orignal peer test is not implemneted for Charlie yet

orignal remeber we dsicussed it yeserday

zzz you have messages 1-4 done?

orignal probably I send something back to Bob

orignal no

zzz I got a message 3 back and it looked right

orignal I definitly don't check signature yet

orignal yes, message 3 works

orignal but signature was not checked

zzz so that's what I'm reporting :)

orignal I though you meant relays

zzz and reporting that I have a bug in signature checking for peer test, fixing now

orignal but you use i2pd for peer test without cap

orignal why?

orignal I mean it might lead to crash

orignal because I have incomplete code for it

orignal strange that router replied with msg 3

orignal because I have commited it yesterday tonight ))

orignal last commit

zzz not sure I check for cap, let me look

zzz ok, another bug, I got the 'B' cap from the SSU address, not the SSU2 address

orignal yes, I publish in SSU but not in SSU2 yet

orignal zzz, when Charlie find that Alice's endpoint from her RI doesn't match one from peer test what code should we send?

zzz its a good question

zzz for example, alice may not have any IP in her RI, if she thinks she's firewalled

zzz or it could be a different IP

zzz we can add another code if you want

zzz but in some cases charlie should accept it

orignal my question is

orignal which address is right? from message or from RI?

orignal the problem is

orignal I have enpoint in message but still need an address for intro key

zzz pick the address for v6 or v4

orignal yes

zzz should have code for that already, we do that in other places

orignal that's what I do

orignal but if there is an endpoint in address that doesn't match

orignal I'm sure which one is right

orignal *not

zzz if there's an IP, look for that, if not, look for 6 or 4 in the cap

orignal that's what I do

orignal but if there is IP and it's different from one in the message

zzz not sure

zzz maybe reject, maybe not

orignal I think we should use from message

orignal because RI might be outdated

zzz or could be testing a different ip

orignal while IP in message is current one

zzz but could be an attack also

zzz maybe should be rate limited if different

orignal ?

orignal also 6 and 7 are identifcal to 5 just different msg

zzz like if some attacker asked everybody to peer test putin's IP, 5 times a second

orignal attacker can publish RI with Putin's IP

orignal easily

zzz true, but routers will try it once or twice and then give up

zzz peer test is on-demand

zzz I need to look if I have any throttles now, don't remember

orignal yes, but he can flood with peer tests

zzz yes I have a throttle now. 12 per IP per 10 minutes

zzz that sounds way too high

orignal it's bad

zzz can always tweak it

orignal what if it;s floodfill?

orignal bunch of short connections

zzz I'll put it on my list to review it

orignal almost done with Charlie

orignal need to implemnt 6 and 7 but they are simple

zzz great. I'm still chasing bugs

orignal message 3 is complicated

orignal if I receive 5 before 4 should I wait for 4?

orignal because I don't know Charlie's hash from 5

orignal but I need intro key for 6

zzz from the spec:

zzz NOTE: As in SSU 1, messages 4 and 5 may arrive in either order. Message 5 and/or 7 may not be received at all if Alice is firewalled. When message 5 arrives before message 4, Alice cannot immediately send message 6, because she does not yet have Charlie's intro key to encrypt the header. When message 4 arrives before message 5, should not immediately send message 6, because she should wait to see if message 5 arrives

zzz without opening the firewall with message 6.

orignal so I have to wait 4 before sending 6

zzz correct

zzz ok the peer test signature is fixed and tested