~dr|z3d
@RN
@RN_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
%acetone
%ardu
%cumlord
%mareki2p
+FreefallHeavens
+Onn4l7h
+Over
+Sh0ck
+Xeha
+bak83
+leopold
+marek22k
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo_BNC
+romer
+uop23ip
+waffles
+xHarr
Arch
BubbRubb
Danny
DeltaOreo
Irc2PGuest10122
Irc2PGuest16791
Irc2PGuest82685
Irc2PGuest93285
Maylay
Meow
Stormycloud_
ac9f
anontor
combed_tree328
coolbuddy799
duck
halloy13412
makoto
nZDoYBkF
nilbog
not_bob_afk
onon_1
pory
r00tobo[2]_
shiver_1
simprelay
solidx66
thetia
u5657_
vivid_reader56
woodwose
zer0bitz_
bpb
Okay, finally testing yggdrasil-over-i2p.
bpb
Step one: Generate a vanity ip address.
dr|z3d
ygg only works on i2pd.
bpb
I'm doing ygg over i2p, not i2p over ygg.
dr|z3d
ok, as you were. let us know how you get on.
bpb
Just connecting with socks: github.com/yggdrasil-network/public-peers/blob/master/other/i2p.md
orignal
HidUser did it before
orignal
zzz when do you think to come back to the discussion about PQ for transports?
orignal
I2P Node (I2Pd, sigtype = 7, in/out length = 1, quantity = 5), operated by R4SAS
orignal
lol
bpb
I just really like the idea of having an ip address on i2p. I'm old like that. I get shaky when network services don't have ip addresses.
bpb
It looks like there are dead peers on that list.
bpb
R4SAS's peer works though, lol
bpb
Okay, ygg over i2p is really bad it would seem.
bpb
At least in my initial probing.
RN
well, you are doing double crypto
bpb
They do different things, though.
bpb
Okay, so yggdrasil over i2p actually doesn't seem that bad after all.
bpb
I just... had trouble finding anything. No trouble connecting to ilita stuff though.
dr|z3d
ok, routerinfo listings have been streamlined at /netdb?f=2 in the latest + dev build, if you're running dev, let me know how you fine it. full info still available in advanced mode.
dr|z3d
*find
dr|z3d
still some refining to do with advanced mode display, but we'll get there.
bpb
It feels kinda nice - or maybe kinda naughty - to connect to servers on i2p with an ip address. I wouldn't be surprised if it's easy to "leak" like this though.
dr|z3d
make sure your firewall rules are robust
bpb
Yeah, I think that's the trick for isolating ygg. But then there are all the various apps and whatnot you'd have to isolate somehow as well, like web browsers.
bpb
I'm kind of wondering if i2p+ is trying to (or maybe successfully?) connecting to routers over ygg (which is over i2p, lol)
bpb
Okay, so I think my router is doing the ouroboros thing.
bpb
Is there an easy way to restrict an ip range in i2p+?
dr|z3d
you want to add a range to block permenantly?
bpb
Yeah.
dr|z3d
check the range isn't already blocked on /configpeer
dr|z3d
and then if it isn't, have a look at /help/advancedsettings
dr|z3d
that should point you in the right direction...
dr|z3d
(under the router section)
bpb
Okay, so the range is not on the banned list.
bpb
Oh hey, there's a blocklist.txt file.
T3s|4_
bpb: on my end, there are three variants of the blocklist. Under ~/i2p, I have blocklist.txt and blocklist_tor.txt. Under ~/.i2p, I have blocklist-country.txt
orignal
zzz, two questions about transit
orignal
1. do you check I2NP checksum in transit Tunnel msg?
orignal
2. when you receive tunnel or tunelgateway msg do you copy original timestamp or assign current timestamp to outgoing message?
zzz
1) no for the middle hops; mostly no at IBGW/OBEP
zzz
2) original timestamp I think
orignal
so I'm safe to now reculculate checksum?
orignal
I don't check it anyway but needed a confirmation from you
zzz
why would you recalculate if you're not changing it?
orignal
I don't? I encrypt whole message
orignal
ofc checksum will be different
zzz
you may need to explain the question more and I may need more coffee
orignal
I'm a tunnel participant
orignal
I receibe a Tunnel message
orignal
what I do I encrypt payload with my layer key then assign new msgid and send new Tunnel message to the next peer
orignal
so my question is if correct checksum matters in this case
orignal
I want to save one SHA256 if nobody checks it
zzz
I don't know about everybody, including emissary and go-i2p. I don't think we've removed it from the spec, so I don't think it's safe to remove
zzz
you can check the spec and see what it says
zzz
0) re: PQ transports: I hope to get to both the proposal and code soon. I put up "the plan" at zzz.i2p/topics/3697 after our last discussion a couple weeks ago
orignal
I don't care about them only about you
orignal
tell me if you check or you dont check
orignal
when do you thinj you will have PQ code ready to test?
zzz
6-8 weeks?
orignal
fine
zzz
I don't think I check but you should test to be sure. If you want to change the spec you need to write a proposal
orignal
let's try to remove
orignal
well I don't like this idea
zzz
sure, it's just a lot of work to do the security analysis and backward-compatibility analysis, that's why I never did it
orignal
unless we always put say 0 for all tunnel msgs
orignal
because otherwise an anvesary can differentiae tunnel msg coming from originator or participant
dr|z3d
careful, zzz, 'proposal' is a trigger word for orignal :)
RN
*** proposes prolific proposals periodically ***
bpb
Is multihoming currently possible without putting the service's private key on each server?
RN
then how would they be the same? it would just be two copies of the same site at different b32
bpb
I was wondering if there was some magic I wasn't aware of.
bpb
Like signing of secondary keys, or something like that.