#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 Proposal 168 review here 8 PM UTC Tues. Dec. 3

dr|z3d one to keep an eye on: IfNTLPbQ~2CjcPMJRkMBb1YQpLldGZUe9fIuIrYmxZU=

dr|z3d orignal: you don't have a sliding scale for RI expiry based on the number the router has in its netdb?

dr|z3d ~15K known routers on this one, and I doubt it's unique: IfNTLPbQ~2CjcPMJRkMBb1YQpLldGZUe9fIuIrYmxZU=

orignal ofc I do

orignal 15K is a floodfill I guess

weko 15K - normal count for floodfill

dr|z3d might be normal in i2pd land.

dr|z3d that's a lot of RIs to be handling, floodfills don't need to hang onto them for very long.

dr|z3d you could try a more granular approach, orignal

orignal always 1 hour at floodfill

dr|z3d slower b/w tier routers get expired sooner. 1 hour expiry? dang, and 15K. that's hmm.. interesting.

orignal same as on Java routers

orignal propose better algorithm

orignal yes 1 hour expiry

dr|z3d if K,L,M or unreachable and known peers > 2000, reduce expiry by 50%. or something.

orignal we should change it together with zzz

orignal but yes it's good idea to expire shiity routers earlier

dr|z3d I don't even bother writing shitty routers to disk. saves on disk churn.

zzz that's up to you, no need to coordinate with me

orignal I think we should

orignal for floodfills

zzz our strategy is very different from yours already

orignal I think 1 hour expiration is the same

zzz yes, can't make it much lower, because that's how fast routers publish

dr|z3d 1 hour expiry and 15K routers seems a lot higher than I've seen, but maybe i2pd routers are getting more ff traffic.

orignal but expire shitting routers in 30 minutes makes sense

orignal bad luck fr them

zzz not if you're ff, you can't, if they published to you

zzz if you got it from an inbound connectoin, thats different

dr|z3d if not current release version && K, L or M or unreachable, no transit tunnels for you! :)

dr|z3d but yeah, 1h seems like the min expiry, so maybe just don't write the shit to disk, orignal, at least then when you restart the router the shit is gone for a moment or 2.

zzz i got my own stuff I'm working on, don't bring me in to help on crazy drz ideas ))

dr|z3d off you go then, zzz :P

dr|z3d it seems that when you start to go higher than 4-5K known peers, the shit grows exponentially while everything else is linear. so 4K is a good cutoff.

dr|z3d on non-floodfill routers I see around 2-2.5K at startup, given the crap isn't written to disk. plenty.

dr|z3d and if you're not discriminating too much on what to build local tunnels with, that helps at startup.

dr|z3d as a loose rule of thumb, P+X tier should be > L tier routers. that's what I'm working with.

dr|z3d and unreachable no more than 20% of total netdb.

dr|z3d (for non-ff)

weko Some person reported about 24K transit tunnels

Xeha 26K was the max i've saw on mine

Xeha or almost, 254.. something around that

Xeha lots of tunnels, but not much traffic then

weko It is spikes

weko Main issue what it is spikes, not normal value

dr|z3d add some offending router hashes to your blocklist, kiss goodbye to shitty tunnels. or don't.

dr|z3d or block a couple of /24s in your firewall, failing that.

dr|z3d reasonable transit tunnels on a fast router is about 6-8K. more than that, you're probably hosting crap for a tunnel spammer.

dr|z3d fast router right now, ~3.4K tunnels, 7MB/s. that's a bit more "normal".

dr|z3d the b/w is spiking at that rate looking at the graph, but transit tunnels aren't.

Xeha its not an issue, dr|z3d

Xeha its not really cpu intensive

dr|z3d sure, from a sole router perspective it's not much of an issue, Xeha, but from the network's perspective it's definitely an issue.

Xeha if i'd block them, others would see higher load.

dr|z3d sure, you'd just be shunting the problem elsewhere without a global network-wide ban. that's already happening, i2pd is bearing the brunt of the spam.