@eyedeekay
&zzz
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+Stormycloud
+dr|z3d
+hagen
+hk
+lance074
+orignal
+postman
+qend-irc2p
+snex
+weko
+wodencafe
AHON1
Arch
BubbRubb1
C341
Daddy_1
Danny
DeltaOreo
FreeRider
FreefallHeavens
Irc2PGuest57893
Irc2PGuest81140
Irc2PGuest82088
Irc2PGuest85022
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Sleepy
SlippyJoe
T3s|4_
Teeed
aargh
acetone_
ardu
b3t4f4c3___
b4dab00m
bak83_
cumlord
death
dr4wd3
duanin2
eyedeekay_bnc
idontpee
mareki2p_
not_bob_afk
ohThuku1
poriori
profetikla
r00tobo_BNC
rapidash
shiver_
solidx66_
thetia
u5657
uop23ip
w8rabbit
x74a6
obscuratus
eyedeekay: PeerSelector is a more involved issue than I first appreciated.
obscuratus
I was reviewing the FloodFillPeerSelector class, and I couldn't see anywhere where it understood how to use any other netDb except for the primary floodfill netdb.
obscuratus
On the plus side, things seem to work OK dispite this being somewhat borked.
obscuratus
We may need to pivot to something like relying on trip-wires for RI coming in the Inbound Message Distributor.
obscuratus
As a work-around, on my testing network, it wouldn't be difficult at all to make sure the subDbs are populated exhaustively with every FF RI.
obscuratus
Or, maybe begin testing the nested netdbs without any RI at all, and make sure nothing breaks when we run that way.
obscuratus
I'm almost running that way now, with only the minimum 3 FF in each subdb.
eyedeekay
Thanks for the update, my next move will probably be in the direction of no RI's in subDb's first