IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#ls2
/2023/01/23
@eyedeekay
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+Xeha
+orignal
FreeRider
Irc2PGuest22478
Irc2PGuest48042
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
T3s|4_
aargh3
acetone_
anon4
eyedeekay_bnc
not_bob_afk
profetikla
shiver_1
u5657
weko_
x74a6
zzz 0) Hi
zzz what's on the agenda for today?
zzz you have a go-i2p status report?
eyedeekay I don't really have anything ready for go-i2p report yet
orignal network overload
zzz ok network overload will be 1)
zzz I'll add:
zzz 2) congestion caps
zzz 3) new proposals
zzz 4) two leasesets from postman
zzz anything else?
zzz ok then
zzz 1) network overload
zzz go ahead orignal
orignal it's just overloaded again today
orignal Ilita has reached 100 Mbs
orignal does someone have some new info where it comes from?
orignal also people complain that tunnel build ratio is low on active node with a lot of transit
zzz but I promised I'd give bitcoin an update "mid Jan." so I need to do that
orignal for me it looks an attack
orignal inteninal
orignal to put the netwrok down
zzz by my stats we've been in congestion since early sunday
orignal R4SAS reported his router has reached 15K ransit tunnels limit
zzz things were improving all last week
orignal we see it bad today
zzz I did some research yesterday
zzz to see how various versions were handling the traffic
zzz so I did a plot of part. tunnels by router version
orignal yes last week
zzz java routers only ofc
orignal but now it's worse again
zzz the 0.9.57 routers are handling the storms very well
orignal and what's your conclsion?
zzz 0.9.57 has 25% less part. tunnels than 0.9.56
zzz because it's properly rejecting
zzz also, all routers <= 0.9.56 see the storms a lot worse
zzz here's my new chart
zzz so my conclusion is that my network stats are actually quite promising... 0.9.57 routers are not having trouble
zzz it's all the older routers that are dealing with it and affecting the stats
zzz what do you think?
orignal then why tunnel creating rate is low?
zzz because everybody is filling up with spam tunnels
orignal my position is the same as before, we can handle it
orignal but we don't like that tunnel build requests get rejected too often
orignal I have change my profiling
orignal I give up a router for 2.5 minutes after reject
zzz we're still only at 44% 0.9.57
zzz yes, it's a good time to work on profiling and peer selection code
zzz I have some changes coming also
orignal and also for rouyers is no reponse too often
zzz right
orignal plese tell me if you ban a router if you receive tunnel build requests too often
zzz we "blame" peers when no response. it could be that tunnel or the reply tunnel, we add them up and say, 33% blame to him, 15% to her, 50% to that guy, etc
zzz so that all goes into the profile
zzz we do not ban a router for that, I think it's a vulnerability to do so. drz was doing that and I talked him out of it
dr|z3d orignal: I do, but I have a much more generous allowance for requests than zzz.
dr|z3d I barely see any bans these days.
orignal I mean not router but tunnel build coming from it
orignal see what happend
zzz yes we only any router to be in 3% max of participating tunnels (more or less)
orignal low active router expecially firewalled has much better rate
orignal than high loaded router
orignal it simply means you punish routers for active particiaption
dr|z3d I think my rate is now at something like 15 (?) requests every 220s for slow routers, more for faster routers.
dr|z3d with a sliding scale based on overall percentage.
orignal zzz, not a problem with transit tunnels
zzz ok good
orignal the problem is own tunnels
orignal that an active router can't build tunnels
dr|z3d Haven't seen anything explictly banned in a while. Very rarely do requests get dropped.
zzz sure. in times of congestion, slow down tunnel build, don't speed up
zzz go down to 1 tunnel
orignal maybe you guys drop requests too often
zzz we're handling 50% more tunnels per router than back in November before this all started
zzz we can handle it
orignal as result I will have to change my profiler to bypass routers that don't let me build my tunnels
dr|z3d any theory on the asymmetric traffic, zzz? it's sometimes pretty pronounced.
orignal and if Java keeps droping but i2pd doesn't
zzz I still think it's tunnel builds from insane sam clients or i2pd routers, but it could also be i2p plus infinite loops or bugs
orignal it will endup that i2pd build tunnels through other i2pd only
orignal also I see not extra transit on ygg-only routers
zzz yeah we don't want to segment the network into two parts
zzz it's just going to take some time to work out
zzz anyway, what should I tell bitcoin?
orignal and since Java never selects ygg-only routers for tunnels
orignal you should tell there is nothing to do with them
dr|z3d orignal: that's always a good idea.
dr|z3d if you get repeated rejects from a router, assume it's either overloaded or doesn't like you and avoid it for a while, don't keep sending requests.
orignal also I saw sormycloud's tweet that he has bandwidth issue
zzz yeah I think I have to say that, sorry if the GH issue sounded panicky, we're smarter now, probably not bitcoin
orignal dr|z3d but it will endup with split queicly
orignal zzz, ofc no
zzz stormy is running i2p plus and I think is vulnerable to several nasty bugs
orignal the way how they implemented is shitty
orignal and they should fix this issue regardless
zzz right orignal we want to encourage them to fix it, they are doing that
zzz agreed
orignal aboyt strormy
orignal if he has bandwidth issue
orignal maybe too many people use i2p as tor
zzz ok that will be my message, I'll put it in the GH issue later this week
zzz anything else on 1) ?
dr|z3d not that, orignal
zzz go ahead about stormy
dr|z3d outproxy traffic is what you'd consider normal.
dr|z3d if anything, the issue is probably Tor itself and the ongoing DDOS.
orignal however
orignal is it possible that bunch of people use i2p instead tor?
dr|z3d we did see some huge usage on one of the outproxy routers before Xmas.
orignal expecially from Russia
dr|z3d but that wasn't outproxy traffic.
orignal so would be nice what stormy says
zzz I've also added outproxy warnings to our bittorrent and embedding guides
dr|z3d I'm just talking to him. He just wants faster is all. Doesn't sound like an issue as such. grumbling about needing a 10Gb pipe.
zzz it's not directly related to request rejects
orignal fine for me
eyedeekay I don't have any other concerns you haven't been able to address
zzz other than to avoid getting there
zzz a couple issues with implementation:
zzz a) I can't enable it now or we find all the dev build routers
dr|z3d and if I'm publishing a "high loaded, avoid" cap and you're still pushing requests my way, then you're probably up to no good if you known about the caps, no?
zzz b) I don't really want to do the profile-update side of it until a lot of routers support it
zzz so I think what I want to do is: Flip a switch to turn it on after our next release is out
dr|z3d re a) just do what you've done for the simple stats, zzz.
zzz and then do the profile-handling part of it in the release after that (July)
zzz I'll put one router up now that will publish it, since it's in a dev router family anyway
dr|z3d if local.version < 0.9.58, don't enable. that's the basic logic, orignal
zzz we good with D/E/G or anybody want to spend a week arguing about it? :)
orignal so should I add code just to recognize them?
orignal why? If see such code it means I can use it
dr|z3d D E G seems fine, no sense bikeshedding.
zzz you can if you want orignal, I'm worried about adding a bug that would avoid everybody and break things
zzz so I may recognize it but not do too much with it
orignal I mean just to not produce log message if I see such unknown code
zzz that's the hardest part, if everybody publishes E, don't break
zzz sure
zzz thats fine
zzz I'll put up my router with it tomorrow
zzz and I'll put this into a proposal, which will be 162
zzz anything else on 2) ?
orignal ok. 162
zzz 3) new proposals
zzz so I have three stubbed out and loaded up
zzz 162) congestion caps
zzz 163) Datagram2, to fix the signature issues from back in the LS2 proposal
zzz 164) Just a stub, it's the issue I'm working on privately with orignal, will make it public later
orignal good point
zzz and I'm awaiting to test that fix with you when you get to it, no rush
orignal yes I will implement 164 soon
orignal also what do you guys think about quic instead streaming?
zzz so I'm putting them all on the website, but 164 will only say 'streaming', thats it, nothing else
zzz SSU2 nearly killed me, let's not do it again :)
orignal I should
orignal because streaming becomes a bottleneck now
zzz anything else on 3) ?
zzz maybe it just needs some tune-ups/tweaks/fixes
orignal I plan to implement UDP socks proxy
zzz client-side you mean?
orignal no, streaming alsways use one tunnel rather than all available
orignal yes, client proxy
zzz oh, that's the multipath TCP stuff, that's really hard, I looked at it once
orignal you meantione you have it already
zzz right
zzz anyway
zzz anything else on 3) ?
zzz 4) two LS from postman
zzz I spent about 15 minutes looking at it on stats.i2p which has a similar setup and looking at logs
zzz didn't see anything wrong
zzz all looked fine and only got one LS from stats
zzz I'm awaiting an answer from postman on whether he's on the i2p plus platform or not
orignal I can tell you more
zzz once I get the answer, I'll either forward that info to dr|z3d or dig into it more myself
orignal postman always sends back wrong one
orignal and I have to re-request it from floodfill
zzz that makes sense
orignal hence get disconnects from Irc2P too often
zzz yeah that doesn't help
zzz not a bad problem, but not great either
dr|z3d related, being able to expire leasesets locally before they're expired, to force an update.. worth thinking about?
zzz so when I hear from postman we'll move forward
zzz dunno what you're trying to accomplish with that
zzz anything else on 4) ?
dr|z3d a nicer way of requesting a new lease than restarting the client tunnel is what I'd hope to accomplish.
zzz well you could put a delete button on the console I guess
orignal that's what we do now
dr|z3d yeah, that's kinda what I'm driving at, zzz.
zzz have fun
zzz ok, next meeting in one week or two?
dr|z3d delete remote lease, or delete all remote leases. :)
zzz ok, Feb. 6
zzz thanks everybody
dr|z3d fwiw, zzz, while I'm still trying to work out the stackoverflow bug, for now I've backed out a chunk of the ISJ mods.
zzz nice
dr|z3d so we'll see if that helps anything.
zzz I'm thinking of a more structured way to try to convince you of where you've gotten in the weeds, without the pain or time of a code review
zzz maybe next week
dr|z3d I'm still varying concurrency and timeouts based on a bunch of criteria, but otherwise, everything else is as canon.
dr|z3d when I've confirmed it's not breaking stuff I'll commit it and invite you to check it's more sane :)
zzz you're not grasping how deep down in the router you are in ISJ or what the rules are when you're there
zzz and you're probably doing it elsewhere
zzz OOMs, heisenbugs hard to reproduce, network spam, or problems in unrelated areas could be the result
dr|z3d sure, can't argue.
dr|z3d ok, this patch seems fine on a few routers, no obvious epic fail happening. let me commit it.
zzz well, your mods are not (at all) functioning as intended, so they weren't well tested, and rest assured there's no downside to ripping them back out :)
weko Tunnel creation success rate: 22%
weko Looks bad
dr|z3d I have mixed results on various routers. one is 55%
weko Client Tunnels: 295 (I haved 220 some days ago)
zzz that change is insufficient, as you've left in near-identical borked code in the constructor that was implicated in the stack overflow last week, but now I'm just repeating myself and I can't be your code review guy
weko My router always have >9000 tunnels
weko zzz: are you really working on multipath streaming? I guess оrignal suggest you, I am right?
dr|z3d boolean uninteresting the problematic section, zzz?
dr|z3d oversight if it is, I meant to remove that.
zzz so no, it's not all as in canon
zzz your constructor mods were directly in the path of the stack overflow last week, check the logs, and if it happened once I bet it's happening to lots of people
zzz I don't know how you thought you fixed it last week but your code is still in there
zzz identify the loop, find out which of the steps is your mod, rip it out, that breaks the loop, that was my advice last week
dr|z3d if that doesn't fix it, I'm at a total loss as to what does.
zzz but my advice this week is rip it all out
dr|z3d aside from modifying concurrency and search timeouts, I have.
zzz I'm not even gonna look, that's all I got for now
dr|z3d if there's something obvious in the latest commit that's still not been addressed, I'd be happy to know what it is.
dr|z3d great. thanks. remind me to be equally elliptic when you need help :)