@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
eyedeekay
Sorry I'm late, bouncer trouble
eyedeekay
Welcome to the resumed LS2 meeting
eyedeekay
Only 2 topics from me today, 1. 2.2.1 release, 2. R/U/H caps
orignal
hi
eyedeekay
Anybody here? orignal, obsucratus, dr|zed?
orignal
also publishing SSU as SSU2
dr|z3d
hi eyedeekay
eyedeekay
OK that will be 3.
R4SAS
hi
eyedeekay
Hi dr|zed
obscuratus
Hi
eyedeekay
Hi R4SAS, orignal, obscuratus
eyedeekay
Thanks for coming everyone
eyedeekay
OK so 1. is 2.2.1 release, this is a point release for Java I2P 2.2.1, i2pd need not do anything for this release, I2P+ it's up to you if you want to sync up with this one
eyedeekay
Key change is blocklist updates, key updates, and packaging fixes for Debian and Docker
eyedeekay
Also translation updates
orignal
when is the next major release?
eyedeekay
I'd like us to return to a 3 months cycle after this, which would put the next major release in early-mid July
orignal
nice
eyedeekay
If that works for the i2pd team then tenatively, I'd like it to be July 15
dr|z3d
I'm still not convinced we need a .1 release, but hey.
dr|z3d
for debian, sure, but for java installer, not so much.
eyedeekay
Your choice if you want to follow along with it, it's not going to contain anything you can't do without
eyedeekay
in particular, since I2P+ has it's own translations it's not that important for you
dr|z3d
yeah, nothing there that screams do a new release :)
eyedeekay
Got disconnected, anything else related to 1?
orignal
no
dr|z3d
I think we covered 1.
orignal
mid Jul is fine
eyedeekay
good
eyedeekay
2. R/U/H caps
eyedeekay
I did some homework on this one, trying to find where we use these caps with git grep as suggested by dr|zed
eyedeekay
We do use the U cap in a way which seems significant, we mark routers who transmit the U cap as soon as we get a routerInfo from an unreachable router
dr|z3d
we check for U to determine if we should use a router for tunnel builds, mostly we don't if U, except occasionally for exploratory tunnels. and other places.
eyedeekay
It seems that it's used as an optimization of sorts when making the decision
orignal
but my question is not this
orignal
my question is even U is useful why do you have to send it?
orignal
you can always figure out from addresses
eyedeekay
I don't think strictly speaking we "have" to send it, same for R, if you want to know, just try and reach it obviously
dr|z3d
orignal's suggesting we could just tag routers on the fly as R or U, and I think we do, but we rely in the first instance on what the router tells us.
orignal
so my question is if I have to send it or if you can handle RI without it
eyedeekay
Yeah we can handle RI without it as far as I can tell
obscuratus
Our exploratory build success rate went up a lot when we started de-emphasizing U routers. It's handy to have a tool to quickly screen these out.
orignal
also it's confusing for ipv4 and ipv6
orignal
now tell me what's wrong with U routers?
orignal
that you have to exclude thme from tunnels
dr|z3d
I thought about U re ipv4/6.
dr|z3d
If I'm R on ipv4 and U on ipv6, unless you're ipv6 only then R makes sense.
orignal
what if you are R on ipv6 and U on ipv4?
orignal
that's more realistic scenario and you confuse everybody
dr|z3d
for ipv4 U and ipv6 R, then I don't know what you'd publish? R? what exactly are we publishing? the fact we have a reachable public address? if I'm not ipv6 and you're only R on ipv6, then perhaps locally I should be changing you to U.
orignal
zzz said R
obscuratus
I agree with the general principle that we can figure out reachability ourselves based on RI. U routers should be as viable for tunnels as R routers, but, historically, they're not.
orignal
we explude U routers only for IBGW
dr|z3d
I exclude U from everything.
R4SAS
dr|z3d: currently I tendency to have ipv6 and not ipv4 on some VPS, and, sometimes, I see same for end-users on some ISP networks
R4SAS
*I see
eyedeekay
canon uses them for exploratory tunnels sometimes but for the most part doesn't like to touch them
orignal
dr|z3d what you do without R or U?
dr|z3d
assuming the router's reachable, then I don't think I do anything particularly.
dr|z3d
I don't think I do anything different from canon, anyways. not as I recall.
eyedeekay
Java marks routers reachable or unreachable locally after various operations
obscuratus
eyedeekay: Do we store that anywhere? Or do have to figure that out every time.
orignal
do you know what's published for U4 and R6?
eyedeekay
git grep Unreachable and git grep Reachable will show you usages of markReachable, markUnreachable, wasReachable, wasMarkedReachable
eyedeekay
IIRC these aren't stored persistently, it's part of the profile
orignal
tell me what if an anvesary publishes R but no IP in any address
orignal
*advesary
eyedeekay
Those will become unreachable, but I don't know for sure when
eyedeekay
I'll put finding out on my list
dr|z3d
if a router has no transports reachable, it's tmep banned.
eyedeekay
Thanks dr|zed
orignal
what if it has introducers but publishes R?
dr|z3d
> No transports (hidden or starting up?):BXwk5hI2KCgFONODZMtpujGHf8YkfT7BpgLRWVMpa50=
dr|z3d
aka temp ban.
orignal
No transports means what?
orignal
sec
dr|z3d
no ssu/ntcp published. there's also:
R4SAS
no ssu/ssu2/ntcp2 I think
dr|z3d
> Unreachable on any transport:1qRe4VWwVWSb~tu1Jf5ml-CPOEgymhfVTzCVkZTE87w=
dr|z3d
yeah, correct, R4SAS
obscuratus
I thin 'No transports' really mean 'no reachable transports' in this context.
orignal
dr|z3d someting wrong with you
eyedeekay
Fair point
orignal
BXwk has transports
orignal
please check your code
dr|z3d
that was a transient ban, orignal, not current. historical.
dr|z3d
just randomly pulled from my collection of banned routers.
orignal
SSU2 and NTCP2
eyedeekay
What a coincidence
orignal
No recahnble transort and no transports are diffeent things
dr|z3d
indeed they are.
dr|z3d
no reachable transports means they're published in the RI.
dr|z3d
no transports means they're not published at all.
orignal
No transports means fake
orignal
no reachable transports is valid situation
eyedeekay
My thesis at the moment is that R provides less useful information than U. If a router voluntarily says "U" that is immediately actionable, but an "R" router still needs to be tested if it's actually reachable.
orignal
so please define what U means
orignal
introducers or no published IP?
obscuratus
In Java I2P the functions that determine Reachability have a slightly different meaning. Introducers might return from that function as reachable. And it does get to orignal's point.
obscuratus
I can see Java I2P refactoring to determine reachability without 'R' and 'U'. But it might get more complex as we dive into it.
orignal
I asked for clafirication of U ling time ago
orignal
but still don't have na anwer
orignal
my question is very simple
orignal
if I have ygg only is it U or not?
eyedeekay
IMO it's U
orignal
dr|z3d btw how do you classify ygg-only routers?
orignal
do you consider them as no transports?
orignal
eyedeekay maybe we should write a proposal about R and U?
orignal
but I don't know where
eyedeekay
Yes I think we should, we have options, we can do it on my gitlab instance or on github in an issue/discussion
eyedeekay
I'm also willing to join git.community.i2p if that's better for you
orignal
will try
eyedeekay
OK. Are we ready to move on to 3?
orignal
yes
orignal
3 is simple
orignal
Java still publises SSU
orignal
should do the same as with NTCP2
eyedeekay
To clarify, are you talking of disabling SSU1 and expressly publishing SS2
eyedeekay
*SSU2?
orignal
I'm talking about publishing SSU2 as SSU2
orignal
I don't know how it's implemented for NTCP2
eyedeekay
I don't see any good reason why not at this point
obscuratus
It effectively bans routers older than, what? 0.9.50? But we've starting doing that anyways.
orignal
I'm asking about your timeline
eyedeekay
Tenatively, let's have the timeline be the mid-july release
dr|z3d
ygg I suspect would be unreachable if they're publishing an address.
orignal
fair enough
orignal
dr|z3d so you consider ygg only router as invalid
orignal
and it's wrong
dr|z3d
not invalid, unreachable, but I'm not 100% certain of the dynamics there.
orignal
the problem that you exclude them from netdb
orignal
on floodfills
orignal
it means if someone request you for one you decline
dr|z3d
I never got deep into the whole ygg router thing. left that to zzz.
eyedeekay
I'll put ygg interaction on my to-research list
eyedeekay
Anything else on 3 and/or for the meeting?
orignal
eyedeekay not iteraction
orignal
just consider them as valid routers in ntedb
dr|z3d
yeah, a brief discussion about congestion caps
orignal
and let floodfill respond properly
dr|z3d
for 3a.
orignal
go ahead
dr|z3d
what are you publishing now, orignal? just E and G?
orignal
E for release and E and G for trunk
orignal
never publish D and ignore it
dr|z3d
ok. so why not D?
orignal
I don't understand it's purpose
orignal
what I should do with it
dr|z3d
well, for lower powered routers, ie embedded, arm, whatever, D should always be published.
orignal
and if I see D what I should do?
orignal
also what is "lower powered routers"?
dr|z3d
if you see D, be fairly conservative in your requests. perhaps exploratory only, or only use for transit if there are no non congestion cap routers available.
eyedeekay
routers on slower systems or less-reliable connections, Android springs to ind
eyedeekay
*mind
dr|z3d
yup, android, arm, that sort of thing.
orignal
slow connetuon is L
dr|z3d
we're talking about capability, not b/w speed
orignal
I don't see what's wrong with andorid on WiFi for example
dr|z3d
ie the system's ability to host tunnels.
orignal
yes I know
orignal
that's why I don't understand D
dr|z3d
avoid D routers for most things should speed up the network.
orignal
for slow connection it's L
eyedeekay
Maybe if you want some logic to determine what kind of resources and/or connection in your Android package?
orignal
fine. will D
orignal
explude D from client tunnels
orignal
will do
eyedeekay
Thanks
eyedeekay
Anything else?
dr|z3d
perfect.
dr|z3d
nothing from me.
orignal
we don't have any perormanc eproblem on andorid
orignal
neither RPi
orignal
no old PCs like pentiums
eyedeekay
I'll defer to your judgment on specifics
dr|z3d
you can be more fine-grained regarding publishing D if you want.
dr|z3d
for android, D is probably mostly a good idea.
orignal
you didn't tell me why
dr|z3d
I mean, the assumption is Android routers are mosly phones.
eyedeekay
Exactly
orignal
ofc I'm talking about phones
dr|z3d
so you'd want to avoid routing transit tunnels through them if possible.
orignal
why?
dr|z3d
what might be an idea is to allow the auto-D cap to be overriden.
orignal
they can handle transit
eyedeekay
Or detect if you're on Wifi, 5g, etc and set accordingly
orignal
it only makes sense if they are on mobile netwrok
orignal
e.g. D is "worse than L"
eyedeekay
Yes
orignal
5g? how about 2G? ))
dr|z3d
because performance on android phones is generally not the best, network connectivity isn't always great, and maybe the user doesn't expect to see a huge chunk of traffic on their phone heating it up and causing thermal throttling.
eyedeekay
Also battery life
dr|z3d
that too.
orignal
but what about anonymity?
orignal
no transit no anonymity
dr|z3d
send some exploratory tunnels their direction.
weko
i2pd works on my mobile perfect. battery life - another talk
orignal
mobile netwrok might make sense
weko
sure
orignal
but really anonymity concern
weko
so. let me add 4. current attack
weko
why attacker start again?
weko
2 months of quite and again.
orignal
retoric question
dr|z3d
I don't think the attack's ever stopped, not entirely.
dr|z3d
tunnel spam, sure, that died down for a while, but there are still plenty of shitty ffs out there.
eyedeekay
Yeah I don't think it ever fully stopped
weko
i didnt see any "external" activity very long
eyedeekay
Traditionally the attacker has attacked around this meeting time
eyedeekay
They like to blow the channel offline after we meet
eyedeekay
Rather, IRC itself
eyedeekay
Could be that we had an LS2 meeting
weko
nice
orignal
interesting coincidence
orignal
but he started this morning in EST
eyedeekay
Yeah
weko
so, i want to ask set the time in UTC in channel's topic
eyedeekay
Ack, can do
orignal
but it is in utc
weko
i even dont know what is UDT ))
eyedeekay
It's a typo I didn't catch until you pointed it out to me
weko
oh sorry then ))
dr|z3d
Universal Degradation Time. obviously :)
weko
:)
eyedeekay
Should have been UTC this whole time
eyedeekay
Will set it correctly when the topic changes
eyedeekay
Anything else for the meeting?
orignal
no
eyedeekay
got disconnected again, that's what I get for taking meetings on a mobile
eyedeekay
Anything else for the meeting?
orignal
no
orignal
don't use mobile ))
orignal
anynomity and smartpohone
eyedeekay
Hard to get cable when you're in a moving car
eyedeekay
All right, next meeting will be the 24th
orignal
you should use them togeher ))
eyedeekay
Thanks everybody for coming, see you around the IRC