IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#saltr
/2024/01/21
~dr|z3d
@RN
@RN_
@StormyCloud
@T3s|4
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
+FreefallHeavens
+Leopold
+Xeha
+acetone
+bak83
+cancername
+cumlord
+hk
+profetikla
+uop23ip
+weko
An0nm0n
Arch
Danny
DeltaOreo
Irc2PGuest21357
Irc2PGuest21881
Irc2PGuest43426
Meow
Nausicaa
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over1
anon2
anu3
boonst
mareki2pb
not_bob_afk
plap
poriori_
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66
thetia
tr
u5657
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 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 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.
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
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 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 Here is my tunnel config for that tunnel.
weko <StormyCloud> stormycloud is the best cloud
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
orignal everthing works fine through exit.stormycloud.i2p
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 [Proxy-144]
orignal type=httpproxy
orignal port=4450
orignal keys=transient
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
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 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 no separate thread
zzz they are waiting for bandwidth allocation
orignal let me check
zzz each tunnel has a RED queue
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 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
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
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.
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!