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

eyedeekay I understand how to implement solution A, modifying the handshake so that bob sends a signature, and I understand how it's backward compatible, and I think I even mostly know how to do it

orignal another option that Bob sends IdentHash

orignal third option that Alice sends Bob's iden hash

orignal backward compatibility

orignal you require that block since some partcular version

orignal for older routers it's not required

eyedeekay I was getting to that. I understand very little about solution B, sending bob's identHash, or now solution C, having alice send bob's identhash

eyedeekay For instance, when does bob send the identHash in solution B?

orignal we have "RouterInfo" block already

orignal but we can't send it in SessionCreated

orignal why? because it's too long

orignal Bob sends own identhash in SessionCreated

eyedeekay OK so at the same time as the signature then

orignal Alice receives SessionCreated and compares with her Bob's RouterInfo

orignal you actually don't need to send signature

eyedeekay Now I see what you mean

orignal just"abbreviated" RouterInfo

eyedeekay OK that sounds even simpler than signatures and equally effective

eyedeekay Just for completeness, what about C? how might it help for alice to send bob's identhash, and who is she sending it to, and how are they using it?

orignal yes

orignal Alice sends Bob's IdentHash to Bob in SEssionRequest

orignal Bob sees wrong IdentHash and terminate session

orignal the advanage is

orignal Bob doesn't generate DH keys if identhash doesn't match

orignal that let's elimited an attack with less resources

orignal *eliminate

not_bob That sounds like an elegant solution.

eyedeekay but if Bob is malicious why does Bob terminate the request?

orignal he doesn't

xeiaso bob is not malicious, just his SSU connection address was added by some other RI

orignal but he doesn't have "s" private key

eyedeekay Now I'm caught up with you, OK

orignal we are trying to eliminate another attck

orignal bob is good but he get annoyed with session

orignal because advesary published his IP in fake routers

eyedeekay OK that's more sensible, I had it backward for a moment

eyedeekay And I agree that sounds like a better bargain, more defenses for about the same amount of work

orignal eyedeekay do you know how yggdrasil works?

orignal you can always peer's public key in a link

orignal to make sure you are still connected to node you expect to connect

eyedeekay Yeah that makes sense

orignal so if Alice want to make sure that she is connect to right Bob, she should add that block and Bob should verify it if presented

eyedeekay So by sending the routerIdent Bob knows who Alice is expecting to connect to

not_bob Sanity checks are good.

eyedeekay Yup

orignal no

orignal yes, right

orignal Alice sends Bob's routerident

eyedeekay alice sends bobs ident, bob sees if alice is actually trying to connect to him or some fake router somewhere. terminates if that validation fails

orignal сcorrect

eyedeekay This sounds very promising

weko Hi all

xeiaso hello weko

eyedeekay I'm going to focus on figuring out how this solution can be implemented in Java I2P in the coming weeks

eyedeekay welcome weko

eyedeekay Anything else for topic 1?

eyedeekay We should revisit it in 2 weeks at the next meeting after I've got some time to look at our code

eyedeekay Moving on to 2) release

eyedeekay Pending some moving targets, I will be freezing our translation tags on the 7th or the 8th, and will be releasing on the 19th. We had to push back in order to have time to test some recent changes

eyedeekay orignal is your plan still to release on the 12th?

orignal yes

orignal because R4SAS is busy after 15-th

orignal maybe we will release on 14-th

eyedeekay OK as long as it's about the same

orignal I don;t think it's a big difference between 12 or 19

xeiaso eyedeekay: you will be doing netdb code refactoring?

eyedeekay xeiaso I'm going to try, but we won't release anything without testing it

xeiaso ok

orignal eyedeekay what are you going to use instead stats.i2p?

orignal people really complain that Java can't resolve addresses by default

not_bob My jump service should be in the stock java client.

eyedeekay I'm using metrics.i2p right now and aggregating stats from my floodfills, or do you mean for a default addressbook subscription?

eyedeekay not_bob it is

eyedeekay not_bob if you're not the default subscription already, do you mind to be? It would mean potentially lots of people downloading your hosts.txt file

orignal yes

orignal for addressbook

orignal yes, be prepared

orignal you probably would need mutihoming

not_bob I'm fine being the default. I'm already multi-homed.

orignal just FYI, reg.i2p consumes a lot

xeiaso how much is "a lot"?

eyedeekay Awesome, there's our answer

eyedeekay thank you not_bob

orignal ask R4SAS

not_bob No worries.

eyedeekay OK anything else for 2 or for the meeting?

orignal no

eyedeekay All right thanks everybody for coming, see you around IRC and in 2 weeks, same time

not_bob Thank you.

not_bob Also, I can put more homes online as needed.

obscuratus Sorry I missed the meeting. Been struggling with hardware problems.

R4SAS not_bob: around 350 leasesets in moment

not_bob R4SAS: How much is that in m/s or k/s?

R4SAS m/s? k/s?

not_bob We are talking about default jump service.

not_bob And for subscriptions, default for that as well.

not_bob speed, bandwidth usage esimate.

R4SAS our leasesets means one client per lease of address at destination

R4SAS so i don't collect any statistics, so it is hard to say

not_bob Ok

not_bob I guess I'll find out.

not_bob I'm currently showing about 705 active eepsites on the network.

not_bob With domain names.

R4SAS around same for me

not_bob Registering a domain is not required to host.

not_bob I know I host a number of sites for internal use that are not registered.

not_bob Just use the b32 and call it a day.

R4SAS 18:10:27 [CHECKER] Result: Total hosts: 1034, Alive: 750

R4SAS 19:10:52 [CHECKER] Result: Total hosts: 1034, Alive: 694

R4SAS 20:11:16 [CHECKER] Result: Total hosts: 1034, Alive: 656

not_bob Perfect.

R4SAS whole hosts list checked at 8 AM

R4SAS 08:52:53 [CHECKER] Result: Total hosts: 6827, Alive: 766

not_bob Nice

not_bob I check my list hourly

not_bob I don't get 766 alive though.

R4SAS I check only leaseset existence

not_bob Ahh!

not_bob Yeah, that's not at all the same way I do it.

R4SAS I really don't want check if there is really eepsite or something else

R4SAS because sometime there can be service which will never respond to HTTP request

not_bob Is there a chance I could get a copy of the code you use to check the lease sets?

R4SAS I using BOB, so idk if you can use it )))

not_bob Yeah, I get that.

not_bob Yes, I've run into that as well.

not_bob There is one, nethack.idk.i2p that's a telnet nethack server.

not_bob I can handle BOB interface.

R4SAS not_bob: pm