IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#ls2
/2022/07/05
@eyedeekay
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+T3s|4
+Xeha
+acetone
+orignal
+weko
Irc2PGuest89954
Leopold_
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
T3s|4_
aargh2
anon2
cancername
eyedeekay_bnc
hk
not_bob_afk
profetikla
shiver_
u5657
x74a6
orignal another problem
orignal I try peer test for router with unpublished SSU2 address
orignal and Charlie returns 70
orignal the router is CEFn
orignal I don't think 70 is right code in this case
zzz re: peer test 7, yes I put an address block in there
orignal it's not mentioned in the specs
orignal that it must be presented in 7
orignal so I think the code should we 65 or even another one
zzz yes it is:
zzz Payload
zzz DateTime block
zzz Address block (required for messages 6 and 7, see note below)
zzz Peer Test block
zzz Padding block (optional)
orignal thanks
orignal hence why do accept my 6 and 7?
orignal since I don't send address block
zzz I don't think I check it yet
orignal also please explain when I set status to OK
orignal after 5 or after 7?
orignal we are testing mode with SSU2 and without SSU
zzz I don't declare test successful unless I get both 5 and 7. That's the same as for SSU 1.
zzz but it's a good point
zzz maybe we could stop after #5
orignal I receive 4 and 5, but 6 or 7 got lost
orignal and I remain in Firewalled state
orignal while it's defintly OK
zzz I would classify the result as UNKNOWN and schedule another test
zzz here's from the SSU 1 spec:
zzz If Alice receives Bob's PeerTest message and both of Charlie's PeerTest messages but the enclosed IP and port numbers in Bob's and Charlie's second messages don't match, she knows that she is behind a symmetric NAT, rewriting all of her outbound packets with different 'from' ports for each peer contacted. She will need to explicitly forward a port and always have that port exposed for remote connectivity, ignoring
zzz further port discovery.
zzz so message 7 is used to check for symmetric NAT
orignal yes I know what 7 is for
orignal so what with code 70 instead 65?
zzz 70 is more like a RI problem. 65 is a IP/port problem
zzz but doesn't really matter to me
zzz I'm getting a whole bunch of: PeerTestManager: Too skewed for msg 2
zzz I just drop them
zzz not sure who the alice is, I need to change my logging
orignal so what would you send if there is SSU2 address but without IP/port?
orignal what does Too skewed mean?
zzz clock skew of the timestamp in the peer test block
orignal for how much
zzz don't know yet, just changed the logging
zzz I got 17 of them in an hour, but nothing in last two hours
orignal are you charlie or bob?
zzz charlie. message 2.
orignal it expains
orignal I bet Bob is i2pd
orignal I don't check timestamps in SSU2 yet
orignal so Alice can connect to Bob
orignal and Bob to Charlie
orignal but peer test contains Alice's timestamp
orignal back to the question about unpublished address
orignal I believe we still can send msg 5
orignal because we have endpoint in peer test and s and i from RI
zzz who has an unpublished address? alice or charlie?
orignal alice
orignal and send peer test
orignal in my case charlie responded with 70
orignal but in my opinion msg 5 should go through
zzz if charlie responded 70, he either didn't get RI or couldn't find i
orignal but Bob was 2RRY
orignal e.g. my router
zzz charlie was java?
orignal <orignal> the router is CEFn
orignal didn't check
orignal however the question is more common
orignal what is right behaviour?
orignal probably I know why 70
orignal and will fix it
zzz I was wrong, I send a 65 if I can't find i, not a 70
orignal probablly that's my bug on Charlie side
orignal but do you send 65 in this case or let 5 go through?
zzz if I can't find i, I have to reject, because I can't encrypt 5
orignal you can
orignal you find this address in RI