#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 I2P Protocol Development Discussion - Next Meeting Monday, October 9th 6:30 UTC

orignal and with wrong signature ofc?

dr|z3d not too many of those seen, I'm taking a hardline approach when I see them now. permaban.

dr|z3d maybe 2 or 3 knocking around the network.

RN toasters, toasters, toasters everywhere!

orignal I know where they are coming from

orignal i2pd can send only 2 fragments in SessionConfirmed

orignal if RI is longer last part will not be sent

dr|z3d yeah, understood, orignal, RI is being truncated because some clown has configured a stupid number of introducers on X tier router(s).

orignal need to detect this siatuatiomn and raise error

dr|z3d yeah, ideally just spit out an error and shutdown the router.

dr|z3d check the size of the local RI and shutdown if it's too big. ERROR: Too many introducers configured, invalid RouterInfo generated. Shutting down...

dr|z3d 3 excessive introducer routers identified to date, all banlisted here. you want the hashes, zzz, or you don't care?

orignal btw, I remeber I saw SessionConfirmed with more than 2 fragments

orignal my question is why

zzz I think our existing protections are sufficient, and if he's not overflowing the 3072 buffer, it would still be a valid RI and accessible via NTCP2 or outbound SSU2

dr|z3d this is only for RIs that fail verification.

orignal I think they have channged it

orignal the problem that it doesn't go through is SSU2

orignal zzz but where 2+ fragments come from?

orignal i2pd never sends more then 2 in SessionConfirmed

zzz I assume it's only sending 2, so it's truncated, and the sig fails, as you said yesterday

zzz but maybe it's a DSM, not SSU2

orignal no sometimes I see 3rd fragment

orignal in SessionConfirmed

orignal I'm not talking about that guy

orignal I'm asking why Java even send 3 fragments?

zzz if it calculates it's too big, of course. For IPv6 there's 133 bytes of overhead, so for a 1280 MTU that leaves 1147 bytes, so about 2294 bytes for two

zzz that's pretty big but not impossible

orignal then I should implement 2+ I guess

zzz dmLeecZhuY-NEXZ1nZRYOexI8bzzRfrL8rFStCFaUn4= i2pd is 2109 bytes uncompressed right now

zzz if you're going to publish those tunnel build stats you'll need it

zzz turning off SSU 1 saves you a lot of space. 4 addresses with introducers was pretty big

zzz you probably have 2.44.0 routers over two fragments if they're firewalled + ipv6

dr|z3d what's the timeframe for switching off ssu1? mid-year?

zzz see top of prop. 159

zzz btw I see several i2pd routers with compressible padding

zzz some probably stupid prestium

orignal what is prestium?

zzz zzz.i2p/topics/3512

zzz no persistence, new RI and reseed every time

orignal I thought I did something wrong with copressible padding

orignal *com

zzz looks fine to me, but I hope you tested it ))

orignal I did

orignal you should also see it on zzz.i2p

orignal incoming connections

zzz yeah, haven't looked at leasesets yet

zzz 0) Hi

zzz hi

eyedeekay hi

zzz what's on the list for today?

orignal hi

eyedeekay I can do a short go-i2p update

orignal I think recent high trafiic and number of transit tunnels

zzz ok, you will be 1)

orignal also release

zzz I'll add:

zzz 2) is high traffic

zzz 3) is release

zzz 4) is my symmetric nat state machine proposal

zzz 5) is the D/E congestion caps proposal

dr|z3d 5) perhaps bitcoin progress vis-a-vis i2p/i2pd?

dr|z3d or 6)

zzz ok that's 6)

zzz big list, let's cut it off there

zzz 1) go-i2p

dr|z3d he may be lagged, in which case skip to 2 and return to 1 later.

eyedeekay OK just a brief one, as zzz already knows I had a wild couple of weeks

eyedeekay I added support I2P and bridging support to a pure-Go bittorrent library, and in order to support that, goSam, sam3, i2pkeys, and onramp all got feature releases last week

zzz you still need some index-to-projects page eyedeekay

orignal does it work?

eyedeekay Yes it's great, super fast actually

orignal we tried deluge and it doesn't

eyedeekay Seeds, downloads, and webseeds

zzz so there's some app that wraps the ilb?

eyedeekay just a terminal one now, but github.com/eyedeekay/bttools

eyedeekay It's a fork from the library I adapted

eyedeekay Yeah I think that has to do with libtorrent-rasterbar

eyedeekay I only superficially understand how python-C++ bindings work, not much help there

zzz Vort found the cause

eyedeekay Getting that fixed will be exciting to some users I think

zzz kinda wild it broke 4 years ago

zzz and what about go-i2p, which was the topic? :)

eyedeekay I only just found out that Deluge offered some kind of option for it

eyedeekay go-i2p itself didn't progress as much, Mostly I've been trying to get the obfuscation and de-obfuscation parts of the handshake for NTCP2 right

zzz anything else? we gotta keep it moving, big agenda

eyedeekay Let's call it there, it will take me too long, maybe I'll go to zzz.i2p and do a long-form one this time

eyedeekay I find myself thinking of more to talk about than I expected

dr|z3d ok, 2) high traffic.

zzz ok then, anything else on 1) ?

eyedeekay No thanks

zzz 2) high traffic

orignal the situation looks better now

zzz this is orignal's agenda item, go ahead

dr|z3d still seeing i2pd routers hosting 18K tunnels, orinal?

dr|z3d *orignal

orignal so do we know what cuases it?

zzz my theory remains the same. tunnel build spam

orignal Transit Tunnels: 7241 on mine

orignal twice less

orignal I have another theory

orignal duplicates in SSU2

zzz you have a diffent theory?

orignal about traffic

orignal if same message were resent few times

zzz maybe

dr|z3d we've got 2 separate issues here. a) traffic ie bandwidth usage and b) transit tunnel hikes.

dr|z3d they may or may not be related.

orignal yes

orignal I also think they are different

zzz one thing for sure: i2pd is now a big part of the network. Congestion control is very important

dr|z3d there's a sizeable chunk of transit requests coming from LU routers. that looks suspect.

zzz java i2p congestion control alone can no longer "save" the network by itself

zzz it is now possible for i2pd bugs or poor congestion control to take down the network

zzz not saying that's what happened, but it's clearly possible

zzz the bitcoin guys were creating 290 tunnels at startup

orignal 2.45.1 will contain duplicates drop

orignal will release wednesday

zzz ok

orignal yes and you know I limit nymber if tunnel build requests sent at the time

zzz I boldly predict expl. build success will be over 40% by next Monday

zzz anything else on 2) ?

zzz now my turn for lag...

zzz 3) release

orignal no

zzz go ahead orignal

orignal we will release 2.45.1 wednesday

dr|z3d I'm seeing a significant drop in tunnel request by throttling/temp banning L/U tier routers.

dr|z3d with a scaled approach, reject first, then temp ban if the router persists, transit tunnels look a lot saner on routers I'm watching.

orignal we seethat 2.45.0 improved th situation a lot

zzz we should release tomorrow, a day late

orignal becuse fixed too many bugs

orignal fine

zzz will see how it goes

zzz anything else on 3) ?

zzz yup, us too

orignal no

zzz I'm reviewing our diff, forgot about all the bug fixes from early december

zzz tokens and stuff

orignal another thing

zzz it's a really big release for us, diff-size-wise

zzz go ahead

orignal one ukrainian guy showed me DatabaseStore of 47K

orignal with LS1

zzz wow

zzz don't know how, but you can definitely do it with LS2

orignal myabe the network is full of messages like that?

orignal it was LS1

zzz interesting

zzz if I see one I'll let you know

orignal yes and I have add the code to drop if LS exceeds 3K

zzz anything else on 3) ?

orignal no

zzz 4) nat state machine

zzz zzz.i2p/topics/3489

zzz mentioned a couple of times briefly in december

orignal yes, I read it

zzz really didn't get it fixed until ~12/26

zzz and I have almost all of it implemented and in the release

zzz so I'd like to put it into the SSU2 spec, but maybe it needs review and testing first

zzz thoughts?

orignal you should add it to the specs

zzz ok, we can always change it later anyway

zzz maybe with some thoughts on "full cone nat"

zzz I'd like to actually test full cone nat and symmetric nat locally, but I don't want to f-up my firewall

zzz maybe with an old firewall behind the outside one

zzz anyway, if you have any edits/corrections/suggestions about it, let me know

orignal use iptables

zzz good idea

orignal to simulate it

zzz or I have an old openwrt box I can put behind my other box

zzz and do iptables on that

zzz anything else on 4) ?

zzz 5) congestion caps

zzz I took the conversation from the other day and wrote it up

orignal what's that?

zzz zzz.i2p/topics/3516

zzz which is the opposite of what you originally proposed with "high performance" cap, remember?

orignal yes

orignal let me read

zzz so when the conversation ended, I just wrote it up where we left it

orignal wait

orignal so how would you like to publish it?

zzz this would be in the main RI caps, like PfRD

orignal got it

zzz I believe that's what we were discussing, I just wrote it down the way I understood it.

zzz dr|z3d, does the writeup reflect your memory?

orignal so if we see such cap we should try to build a tunnel?

dr|z3d yeah, that's about right, zzz.

zzz no orignal, if you see a cap you should not try to build a tunnel, or at least try less often

zzz they are "congestion" or "go away" caps

dr|z3d if we're going to publish congestion caps, we could do with some method of determining how loaded the cpu cores are.

orignal yes, that's what I reamnt

orignal meant

orignal exclude on

zzz the one thing I added in the writeup is, if it's 'E' but too old, treat it as 'D'

orignal yes, good idea

orignal let's go ahead

dr|z3d you got that in the writeup: "If this RI is older than 15 minutes, treat as 'D'"

zzz right

zzz I'd like to think about it a little more and decide in a week or two. I don't want to make any definite decision until after the relase

zzz and I have more room in my head

zzz ++

orignal btw, if "no transit" I aslwys raise "D"?

zzz if you don't allow any transit?

dr|z3d no transit being currently hosting no tunnels, or rejecting all transit requests?

dr|z3d if the former, D is fine, if the latter, E makes more sense.

zzz if the latter, we need a new letter

orignal yes, I have such option

dr|z3d maybe 'R' for no transit, aka reject.

zzz because E turns into D after 15 minutes

orignal I reject tunnel requests with code 30

zzz R is reachable

dr|z3d doh.

zzz you could use code 50 to say go away forever

zzz dr|z3d?

zzz guess he's lagged out

zzz weko, what's your 7) ?

dr|z3d 6) bitcoin.. sorry,

dr|z3d well, we appear to be making progress with the bitcoin team, zzz and orignal have both nudged them in the right direction.

dr|z3d they've updated their i2p documentation, though there's still more work to do there. (20 transit tunnels etc).

dr|z3d orignal, zzz: anything to add?

zzz I acked both the PRs

orignal no

zzz ok anything else on 6) ?

dr|z3d not from me.

orignal no

zzz do we have time for 7) ?

dr|z3d 3 minutes.

dr|z3d :)

zzz 7) weko

dr|z3d makes the meeting a round hour.

zzz go ahead

weko Oh

weko Maybe latter

weko I not write yet

zzz ok, next week, if you want

zzz anything else for the meeting?

weko It is suggestion about polling I2NP packets

zzz oh wait. are we on one week or two week cycle?

eyedeekay We were on 2 weeks before the holiday

zzz orignal, one week or two?

zzz yeah but then we had an extra one

zzz ?? you want a meeting next week or in two weeks?

orignal 2

dr|z3d 23rd Jan then.

orignal two weeks

zzz sounds good

zzz happy release week

zzz thanks everybody

weko I suggest add I2NP "polling" message. Tunnel owner send "polling" in tunnel (directly with outbound tunnel or via our another inbound tunnel for inbound tunnels), and every transit router can add some metadata for owner. Then, "polling" will be received directly by router, or received by Endpoint and endpoint sent this packet to our inbound tunnel (we say tunnel(s) in packet)

weko This is useful for:

weko 1) say what out router shutdown. We just need wait 30 sec (if is maximum delay for this messages 30 sec), and in this 30 seconds we add metadata "I am shutdowning...", and then tunnels owner change tunnels for their data without data's streams's lags. It is useful, because we need wait 30 sec (or time what we choose) instead of 10 minutes

weko 2) dynamic change of per-tunnels transit traffic limit. For example, transit router can say "I can transit 150 kbps for now, and then can say " I can transit 200kbps for now"

weko 3) We can use it as tunnels testing (we don't need send more packets without activity with this way).

weko Oh I wrote it

weko We add "I am shutdowning" in every polling message in our transit tunnels*

weko What do you think about this feature?

dr|z3d weko: as I mentioned before, telling 5K routers, or 10K routers that you're about to shutdown is an anonymity risk.

weko dr|z3d: node status is not private info

dr|z3d all I need to do as an attacker is make sure I'm always building tunnels through you, and then I just monitor your shutdowns and the netdb. game over.

weko dr|z3d: we can do same thing now. Just send tunnel requests for getting node status (on/off)

weko dr|z3d: you don't understand my suggestion, I think

dr|z3d there's a reason it takes up to 11 minutes to shutdown. and that reason is predicated on anonymity.

dr|z3d that takes significantly more effort than being told "I'm going offline now".

weko Fact, what you say "I am shutdowning" in transit tunnels (not your tunnels) don't deanonimize you, because router online / offline status already public info

dr|z3d if my router is restarting, there's maybe a 60s window where it's offline. during that period, an attacker can determine I'm offline by probing my port. that's a small window.

dr|z3d I don't currently publish the fact that I'm about to go offline.

weko We say tunnel's owner already public info. But we do this more operative with this.

weko But anyone can check it

weko If you answer, you offline. If not answer, you offline

dr|z3d any proposal has to weigh up the benefits vs the risks. what you're proposing is out of convenience at great risk to the anonymity of the router operator. not worth it.

dr|z3d there's nothing to stop you from aggressively restarting your router without waiting for transit tunnels to expire. the network can handle it.

weko dr|z3d: what risks have publishing public info?

weko dr|z3d: with lags

dr|z3d just read again what I wrote above, weko. there's a reason the same logic's been in play for the last 20 years.