#saltr (irc2p) | I2P+ 2.7.0-9+ >> i2pplus.github.io | skank.i2p | git.skank.i2p | purokishi.i2p | vituperative.github.io/i2pchat | natter.i2p | notbob.i2p | ramble.i2p | shreddit.i2p | cake.i2p | /msg an op for voice

not_bob zzz: Thank you.

dr|z3d hit orignal up with your multi outproxy request, orignal, he wants to hear your thoughts :)

dr|z3d *not_bob

not_bob Does he?

not_bob It might be better to wait till I have it typed up nicely, rather than just some haphazard comments here.

not_bob I'll get on that later today and throw it his way.

dr|z3d <orignal> I don't see him for awhile

dr|z3d <orignal> yes close on idle is old story

dr|z3d <orignal> I need him to discuss outproxy issue

not_bob orignal: Close on idle would be a very useful option.

not_bob orignal: It gives much better privacy as the dest for you browsing isn't the same your entire session.

not_bob orignal: It's better to not have the same dest all the time as it allows someone to correlate your browsing.

dr|z3d I think he was more interested in the request for multiple outproxy support, not_bob, could be wrong.

not_bob Sorry, doing many things.

not_bob Anyway, support for more than one http proxy is very useful. But, each of them needs to be able to outproxy as well. As it stands the only http proxy that can proxy is the one defined in i2pd.conf.

not_bob I can configure more http proxies using tunnels.conf, and they work fine. But they can never outproxy outside of the I2P network.

not_bob The basic idea is that you setup say 5 http proxy tunnels in your tunnels.conf, each with an idle timeout, or a way to reset just that one http tunnel's dest and connection (reset) every so often.

not_bob And then you use another program to fetch resources from a random tunnel for each request.

not_bob As the tunnels cycle on and off the dests change.

not_bob Which gives you a series of ever changing dests for your browsing.

not_bob Which in turn gives you a major increase in privacy.

not_bob But, the key is we need mutli outproxy support for this to be a viable thing, and the tunnels need to be either reset manually (just one, not all) for a new dest, or the ablilty to go idle and then come back with a new dest when activity is detected.

snex could make it so that the only thing the user cares about is the load balancing thing which stays on port 4444 and the others are all internal

not_bob And, even if this use case is not common, the desire for more than one dest for browsing is likely to be a very good idea for people to segment the things they do.

not_bob And the ability to idle timeout and close unused tunnels (if enabled to do so in the config) is a major boon to privacy as well. As you would not have the same browisng dest for days or longer at a time.

not_bob snex: That's one way to do it. I've been using another port and leaving the factory http proxy tunnel alone.

snex is there any reason to not just create a new dest on every http request?

not_bob Yes, bad idea.

not_bob It takes time to build a new tunnel. Yes you can do that, but it would be super slow.

not_bob The idea is that you have 2x the tunenls you need running. And you switch which ones you are using every so often. This allows the other half to idle out and get a new dest.

not_bob Then they are ready when you go to use them again later.

not_bob zzz: I bumbed that.

not_bob bumped....

dr|z3d LOL

dr|z3d don't be going around bumbing things, not_bob :P

not_bob My typo? :)

not_bob I do that all the time. Just ask my wife :(

dr|z3d you'll get the wrong kind of reputation :)

not_bob lol

not_bob Yeah, that is best avoided.

dr|z3d new dest on every request, snex?

dr|z3d that's insane.

not_bob Possible, but very bad idea.

dr|z3d the cost to build tunnels would be enormous, and the latency would be ridiculous.

dr|z3d otherwise, great idea.

not_bob A 300 baud modem would be faster.

not_bob When I was a kid I had a 300 baud applecat modem. I loved it.

dr|z3d what you want is a rotating set of destinations that are renewed frequently enough to prevent correlation but not so frequently that you introduce any delay in requests.

dr|z3d as a side benefit, you're much less likely to encounter site throttling.

not_bob Yes

dr|z3d bake in some connectivity tests to ensure your tunnels are performant, and you have something useful.

not_bob I think it's a fun idea.

orignal not_bob so you are saying that outproxy doesn't work in httprpxy tunnel?

orignal zzz, a question for you. Say I receive TBR and recognize that next peer is too slow. What code should I put?

weko Or transport to next peer is overloaded

not_bob orignal: Correct. If I create a second tunnel in tunnels.conf it works fine for I2P sites, but not for clearnet sites via the outproxy. I've tried passing on the flag outproxy =

not_bob It works fine in the tunnel defined in i2pd.conf, but not if I make a second one.

not_bob Unles I'm doing something wrong, but I doubt that I am since the tunnel works otherwise.

not_bob Anyway, I'm testing a few things to see if they are possible.

orignal i will check

not_bob Thank you

dr|z3d the other issue is not being able to associate more than one outproxy with a single http client tunnel.

weko dr|z3d: you said already

dr|z3d just restating so we've got the full informal proposal(s) in one place, weko.

orignal not_bob it works fine

orignal checked right now

orignal [Proxy-144]

orignal type=httpproxy

orignal port=4450

orignal keys=transient

orignal outproxy=http://<b32 address>

not_bob Let me test it again.

not_bob Do I need the there?

orignal no diffience from standard http proxy

not_bob I don't have that in my i2pd.conf file for the outproxy.

orignal then it will not work either

orignal you set either http or socks

orignal but socks has diffrent meaning

orignal it refers to local proxy

orignal not remote

orignal only stand for remote proxy

orignal for remote socks you don't need a special tunnel just regular client

not_bob I'm talking about outproxy=http://b32

not_bob I get this "Host example.com is not inside I2P network, but outproxy is not enabled"

not_bob With, or without the outproxy=http://b32

not_bob And with or without outproxy=b32

orignal works fine for me

orignal I tried dzen.ru

not_bob I don't want socks.

orignal I don't know which outproxy do you use

orignal I use one of mine

not_bob It's a http proxy tunnel, and it works fine for inside I2P.

not_bob type = httpproxy

not_bob Hmm

not_bob So, it should work then?

orignal I told I tried it 5 minutes ago

not_bob stormycloud is what I am using right now.

orignal give me the address and I will try with them

not_bob exit.stormycloud.i2p

weko not_bob: do you need access only for clearnet?

weko to*

StormyCloud stormycloud is the best cloud

not_bob I want access for I2P and clearnet.

not_bob privatebin.i2p/?009c70a575461966#7VWrE9Y7EuMsdiXasUDJdzX1fpEGYHKHLW9CovgLDndE

not_bob Here is my tunnel config for that tunnel.

weko <StormyCloud> stormycloud is the best cloud

weko :)

dr|z3d the best cloud is no cloud at all :)

not_bob I like to make my own cloud :)

not_bob Much safer than OneDrive :)

StormyCloud anything safer than OneDrive

not_bob ;)

orignal everthing works fine through exit.stormycloud.i2p

StormyCloud :)

orignal StormyCloud you should see my connections to dzen.ru

not_bob StormyCloud: Good to see you!

not_bob orignal: What's wrong with the config I posted then?

orignal idk

orignal [Proxy-144]

orignal type=httpproxy

orignal port=4450

orignal keys=transient

not_bob Heh

orignal outproxy=http://exit.stormycloud.i2p

StormyCloud @orignal, I dont log anything so cant see any traffic.

orignal that's all I have

orignal you can't see traffic, just requests

not_bob I'll try it like that.

dr|z3d yeah, he's not paying any attention to those. if you connected over his outproxy, we believe you :)

not_bob Nope, still get "Host slashdot.org is not inside I2P network, but outproxy is not enabled"

not_bob And I'm doing a reload of tunnel config to reset the tunnels.

orignal don't relaod

orignal restart completely

not_bob Ok

orignal I'm not sure that reload wotks for outproxy param

dr|z3d iplocation.net/find-ip-address to verify outproxy address.

orignal but this is differen issue

not_bob Ahh

not_bob That was my problem!

not_bob So, it does work, but it requires a full restart to work.

orignal yes it needs to be fixed

not_bob Ok, that would explian why I could not get it to work. Thank you.

not_bob And it does work now, tested.

orignal I will check the issue with relioad when I have time )))

not_bob Thank you orignal.

dr|z3d one issue down, one to go. well done, orignal

not_bob orignal: Don't keys default to transient if one is not speificied?

not_bob orignal: At this point, I'd like to associate more than one outproxy to a tunnel. The order does not matter, but if one is down, then it should use the next.

dr|z3d acetone: around and about?

dr|z3d if you are, can you pm StormyCloud your ipv6 address for outproxy.acetone

orignal yes transient is default for cleint tunnels

orignal no I don't have an ability to specify multiple outproxies yet

orignal no acetone is not around

orignal * [acetone_] idle 153:51:27, signon: Sun Jan 14 12:02:45

dr|z3d don't blame him, fresh air and all :)

dr|z3d are you contemplating multiproxy support, orignal?

dr|z3d "yet" sounds like you may be.

orignal not now

orignal I have many other things to do

orignal and I don't have time

dr|z3d ok, I gotcha. not a priority, but maybe in future, then.

zzz orignal, code 0 (accept)

orignal but we don't want to accept

orignal we want to reject

orignal because we know that that path is overloaded

orignal but maybe use different than 30 code

orignal because we are capable but that link is not

zzz disagree. accept it.

zzz then the 'overloaded' router can accept or reject, and the tunnel creator can discover for himself how fast it is

zzz maybe it's an exploratory tunnel.

zzz if you reject it, creator will blame you

orignal that's why I would prefer to use different code

orignal next router wouldn't discover it either

zzz how do you determine 'path is overloaded'?

orignal by outgoing queue for example

orignal by actual bandiwtdh vs. published

zzz does that happen often?

orignal yes, we see it often nodays

orignal we explude such links from own tunnels

orignal also high RTT

orignal dGk~: [2001:bc8:30c6:100::dead]:15133 => [306109186:374677537]

orignal [queue:22]

orignal => UbsQ: 69.123.223.149:25277 [2405154:59714] [queue:4] [slow]

orignal like this

zzz there's no way to determine 'actual bw vs published'. you don't get all his bandwidth for one tunnel.

orignal if I see actual 500 Mbs on a link while it publishes O

orignal ofc idk his full banwidth but if see that my link exceeds his bandwidth I bypass

zzz if I have a thousand connections, each one isn't getting the full bandwidth

orignal it's not true anymore

zzz I almost never see overloaded / backlogged connections. Maybe you have bugs?

orignal there are reallty high loaded tunnels

orignal maybe you don't print them?

zzz you need to be throttling / dropping at the tunnel layer, don't let a tunnel overload a connection

zzz that's how you fix it

orignal please exaplain

orignal if there is a high loaded tunnel

orignal what do I do with data gooes trough?

orignal limit per tunnel?

zzz at some queue in the "middle" of your router, do your dropping there

zzz not at the transport

orignal yes, when it's too big

orignal like 500 I2NP messages backlog

orignal on a transport

orignal and no there is no internal queue inside

zzz yeah, that's too late.

orignal only on links

zzz you have to limit partitipating tunnel traffic before it gets to the transport

orignal Tunnels:

orignal Queue size: 25

orignal it's nothing

orignal what should I limit with?

orignal what value do you use?

zzz codel

zzz we limit to the configured share % times the configured outbound bandwidth limit

orignal but it's for all transit

orignal not per each tunnel

zzz stats.i2p/docs/queues.html

zzz no separate thread

zzz they are waiting for bandwidth allocation

orignal let me check

zzz each tunnel has a RED queue

orignal red?

zzz random early drop (codel)

zzz so they are throttled by the participating bandwidth limit

orignal how do you distribute bandwidth between few transit tunnels?

zzz the bandwidth limiter on the right in the picture is the total bandwidth limit

orignal do you asiign some weight or all equal?

zzz first come first served, nothing fancy. equal weight

zzz but a bandwidth hog will overflow his queue

orignal what if few tunnles have data to send?

orignal who will be serverd first?

zzz huh?

orignal 5 transit tunnles have messages to send thorugh a libk

zzz we don't do round-robin

orignal link became ready to send more

orignal who will be serverd first?

orignal then why do you need a queue per tunnle rather than per transport?

orignal if it's always FIFO

orignal a high loaded tunnl can still shit out whole transport

zzz it's FIFO, but we use priority queues, so each message has a priority

orignal how do you asiign priority

orignal that's my main question

zzz message size, our messages vs. part. messages, i2np message type, ...

zzz the priority queues are marked in the picture

orignal 99% of ipnp message type is "tunnel" or "tunnelateway"

zzz sure but all of our messages are higher priority than tunnel messages

orignal good point

orignal will implemnt this way

zzz here's ours:

zzz /**

zzz * Priorities, higher is higher priority.

zzz * @since 0.9.3

zzz */

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_HIGHEST = 1000;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_MY_BUILD_REQUEST = 500;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_MY_NETDB_LOOKUP = 500;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_MY_NETDB_STORE = 460;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_EXPLORATORY = 455;

zzz /** may be adjusted +/- 25 for outbound traffic */

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_MY_DATA = 425;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_HIS_BUILD_REQUEST = 300;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_BUILD_REPLY = 300;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_NETDB_REPLY = 300;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_HIS_NETDB_STORE = 200;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_NETDB_FLOOD = 200;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_PARTICIPATING = 200;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_MY_NETDB_STORE_LOW = 150;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_NETDB_EXPLORE = 100;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_NETDB_HARVEST = 100;

zzz public static final int PRIORITY_LOWEST = 100;

zzz we also have application priorities, so snark is lower than http, etc

orignal and when do you drop? when you can;t send right a way?

zzz codel or queue overflow

zzz let me look to see how big the tunnel queues are

orignal because we need to do somthing with it

orignal sometimes we send NTCP2 frame of literally 64Л

orignal *64K

zzz but main point is you have to drop in the "middle of the router" before you get to the transports.

orignal e.g. max

zzz don't let participating traffic kill you

orignal yes, priority is good idea

zzz we also drop more for obep and less for ibgw, because the message is "sooner" at the obep

weko [13:22:45] <zzz> there's no way to determine 'actual bw vs published'. you don't get all his bandwidth for one tunnel.

weko No way? It is possible and can realized.

weko [13:32:10] <zzz> yeah, that's too late.

weko Agree but need even increase maybe because i2pd steaming. Can fix streaming and then reduce queue.

zzz still researching our tunnel queues, stand by...

weko zzz: ideally do same warning to tunnel owner that transport overloaded

weko For except data loss. Data loss very bad for streaming (creating big lags because big latency)

weko For some tasks avoiding lags prefer then speed

zzz mid-tunnel injection is not possible

weko And yea, transport can be easy overloaded, because big packet loss ratio or low speed of transmit data

weko zzz: can be added to protocol

zzz no

weko It's just bidirectional tunnels

weko We use for data only one direction anyway

zzz ok orignal after some research:

weko We need more stable connections for really be "IP2".

zzz we don't have per-tunnel queues except for IBGW

zzz the spots marked "RED" in the middle are just a single "synthetic" queue limiting the participating bandwidth

zzz as I was explaining to eyedeekay the other day about synthetic queues

zzz IBGW has a red/priority queue, because it's important to do the dropping before you fragment, not after

zzz so you know the message type and size for the priority calculation, and drop whole messages, not fragments

zzz so the fragmenter pulls off of that queue

weko Anyway with current i2pd steaming realization transport queue should be more then MAX_WINDOW * 2

zzz opposite for OBEP - reassemble and then RED

weko With better realization can be reduced

zzz weko, this has nothing to do with streaming layer. this is low-level routing queue management / throttling

weko I understand. It's bad steaming realization

weko And it's reason for bad fixes at low level

zzz maybe, maybe not.

zzz router has to protect itself

zzz see picture linked above

weko I just realize how i2pd's streaming works. And how should for not be stucked by queue

weko It's trying to send all packets after ACK at one time.

zzz I don't have a picture for streaming congestion control ((

weko So i2pd sends ACK every RTT/10

weko So not important ))

weko When we try send full window (when packet loss), we trying to send more then queue can accommodate

weko Not accommodate*

zzz you still need window, slow start, AIMD, congestion window, etc

zzz weko, RFC 6298 is the best reference for what you should be doing in streaming

zzz especially section 5

orignal got it

dr|z3d we've got a new webmail webapp someone's been keeping under wraps.

dr|z3d sushimail.

dr|z3d i2pforum.i2p/viewtopic.php?p=2966#p2966

zzz derp. RU blocking Wireguard

zzz no shit

zzz that's why it took a year to do SSU2. We had to fix Wireguard

StormyCloud bunch of optimization done on checki2p.com thanks to Mr. ~Dr

itsjustme *** looks around ***

itsjustme Hey dr|z3d!

dr|z3d itsjustme!!! been a while! you good?

itsjustme I've been well overall yeah

itsjustme Been busy ish

dr|z3d good, good

itsjustme How have you been?

itsjustme I was having issues staying connected for a while

itsjustme Seems like it's stabilized a bit

dr|z3d are you back with us, or just a flying visit? :)

itsjustme Hopefully back but it has more to do with network stability

dr|z3d ah, well, yeah, if you're up to date, things should be a little less volatile. not bad here, thanks.

itsjustme Good to hear :)

itsjustme I never left per se

itsjustme It would just constantly disconnect so I couldn't really converse

itsjustme How have things been in i2p land?

Liorar Hey itsjustme - I remember your nick :)

itsjustme Hey Liorar!