IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#ls2
/2023/03/12
@eyedeekay
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+T3s|4
+Xeha
+acetone
+orignal
+weko
Irc2PGuest5995
Irc2PGuest89954
Leopold_
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
T3s|4_
aargh2
anon2
eyedeekay_bnc
hk
not_bob_afk
profetikla
shiver_
u5657
x74a6
orignal released
dr|z3d you know as soon as you've got a new version committed, someone's bound to build and run it :)
orignal I know
orignal guys like to build trunk
dr|z3d orignal:
dr|z3d WARN [...Handler 3/8] ...ool.BuildHandler: Dropping hostile tunnel request -> Previous and next hop are the same
dr|z3d * Router: [BpATV4]
dr|z3d * Layer Key: SVDEuxhYWSdVXg5ZiKzPEZOdKaRhTgkllloRvs4bn-s=
dr|z3d * IV Key: CiEMAHXdfa3U4R9Xcswldk~OyPb7Sum7qrYtJze8nZ8=
dr|z3d * Reply Key: 5~eSkuIop848UKfmEVvnupE~lusE78zEh6S-9Nv6og4=
dr|z3d * Reply IV: CK3lX4bGzZpqHZ83EIMZPw==
dr|z3d router is one of yours (mail.i2pd.xyz)
dr|z3d smells like a bug.
orignal it's R4SAS's
orignal it's not a bug
orignal just not implemneted ))
orignal tunnels like A->B->A are possible
dr|z3d yeah, smells like a bug to me :)
dr|z3d call it unimplemented if you like.
dr|z3d it's categorized as hostile in any event. shouldn't be happening.
orignal well it's not even unimplemneted
orignal we consider it as feature
orignal like such situation is not impossible
dr|z3d highly undesirable. that's why it's marked as hostile in java i2p, and treated accordingly.
dr|z3d want to request duplicate hops? fine, I'll ban you.
dr|z3d (is how I2P+ handles hostile requests)
orignal I don't request duplicate hops next to each other
orignal only through intermediate
orignal sure you can ban me
dr|z3d any hostile tunnel requests get the router a short term ban.
orignal as I said no problem
dr|z3d would prefer not to ban at all.
orignal let me think. maybe I will implement it later
orignal it was some issue with it
dr|z3d ok, thanks
dr|z3d build success 96% on one router right now. read and weep, orignal! ;)
weko With banned half of network I guess?
dr|z3d hardly, weko.
weko It is less anonymously, you just sell anonymous level for tcsr. Not for respect, my opinion.
dr|z3d the objective isn't to boost build success, that's just a side effect of avoiding shitty routers.
weko I understand
weko It is what about I said
dr|z3d and unless you're running as a floodfill, the ban rate is pretty low relative to the size of the network.
weko Are you sure about "shit router" level?
dr|z3d I'm happy enough. Mostly shit routers fall into the category of floodfills with SSU disabled.
weko So, I suggest add "anonymous level" which will be setup "shit" level for profiling. So, it is ideal, give users setup witch balance of anonymity/quality they want have.
weko which*
weko dr|z3d: why disabled SSU mean shitty? i2pd removed ssu at all, for example. Maybe you meant SSU2?
dr|z3d not needed. like I said, the ratio of bans to known peers is low enough.
dr|z3d advanced users already have a bunch of configs they can tweak to get the result they want.
dr|z3d no, I mean SSU, the protocol, not SSU the version.
weko Oh, okay. Idk why it mean shit for you, but okay then if any version
dr|z3d ok, I'll tell you. 4000+ ffs in the netdb with ssu disabled is why it means shit to me.
weko [20:52:14] <dr|z3d> not needed. like I said, the ratio of bans to known peers is low enough.
weko [20:52:14] <dr|z3d> advanced users already have a bunch of configs they can tweak to get the result they want.
weko So, okay, just idea for ideal realization. Not so useful for make it firstly, ofc.
dr|z3d I try and offer configuration options where they make sense.