tennis2
Did this little icon for i2p called eyeeyepeer, so as not to conflict with the classic itoopie made in inkscape, double-optimised (for some reason one pass doesn't do everything) license GPLv3 licensed in comment
tennis2
Its done in the style of papirus
tennis2
rename file eyeeyepeer_32.svg
tennis2
I will be able to do other sizes (16 18 22 24 28 48 64) if interested
tennis2
did it for the 'snarkdisk' script. Putting in a zenity box asking the user if they want to start i2p/i2psnark after the disk is accessible.
orignal
zzz we see somthing strange
orignal
a lot of floodfills with old version like 0.9.29
orignal
but we agreed long time ago that mininal version for floodfill is 0.9.51
zzz
those are Vuze bittorrent clients
zzz
our agreement was what floodfills we _use_. I can't reach into old Vuze clients and make them not floodfill :)
orignal
yes, we ignore them
orignal
what we are investigation why number of floodfills is less thna before
zzz
before when?
orignal
before the last attack
orignal
but why Vuze even turns on floodfill mode?
zzz
because it's automatic. we don't want applications to disable floodfill. that's bad
orignal
wait. what if I don't want to be a floodfill?
zzz
you can disable it manually in the console. but the default is auto
zzz
auto == enough bandwidth, etc.
orignal
yes, but Vuze is a build-in router
zzz
right, then you would have to edit the router.config file
orignal
idk how Vuze was developed
orignal
so do you see less number of floodfilld now?
orignal
I mean elgible floodfills
orignal
e.g. >=0.9.51 and reachable by ipv4
orignal
we are investiigation what cauuses it
zzz
we talked about it before. my ff count is very flat this year. I do see a big drop around the time of our release late Dec.
orignal
and we have discovered bunch of old floodfiils
orignal
we talked during the attack
orignal
and no attack now but number of floodfills is not back
zzz
I'm flat between 1100-1400 ffs since Jan. 1 to today (on a non-ff)
zzz
want a graph?
orignal
no
orignal
we see 700-800
orignal
we also drop floodfill if we can't reach thier addresses
orignal
looks like you don't filter something that we do
zzz
maybe
orignal
if we see a router was not reachable we exclude it for 2 hours
orignal
if they published IPs
zzz
our release rolled out from about 12/18-12/31, and the attack was 12/25-1/24, it's hard to separate out the two things for cause and effect
orignal
yes, but we are talking about now
orignal
what we check that you don't check
orignal
!r->IsFloodfill () || !r->GetProfile ()->IsUnreachable ()
orignal
we simply check if floodfill and was not reachable recenttly we exclude it
zzz
we do that too, for all routers, not just ff, but only for about 8 minutes. 2 hours is a long time
orignal
let me try
zzz
or just look and see how many you have banned at once
zzz
I currently have 14 routers banned for "unreachable on any transport". don't know how many are ff
orignal
Vort is investigating
orignal
if you saw a floodfill thaty suddently because U what you do?
zzz
I think we would skip it
orignal
I mean you consider that U real or as failed peer test?
zzz
when we were selecting floodfills for a query or store
orignal
so you don't consder U routers as floodfills?
orignal
Vort sees that if we add Uf routers to our numbers we receive your numbers
zzz
it's complicated
zzz
we have known floodfills, unusable floodfills, banned floodfills, and usable floodfills
zzz
and in usable we have: good, ok, and bad
zzz
based on profiles
zzz
actually looks like I was wrong, we don't pay attention to U cap
orignal
and what is 1250? all or thme?
orignal
but how do you connect to such floodfills? through introducers?
zzz
all known in the netdb at the time. everything except banned
zzz
same way we connect to any router
orignal
but an updated floodfill with U doesn't conting addresses anymore
zzz
we don't 'update' RIs like that, changing caps, etc.... it's all done in profiles
zzz
RIs are read-only
zzz
if we can't connect to it, we mark it in the profile