orignal
inetersting
orignal
I'm kicked out too frequentl
zzz
0) Hi
zzz
hi
orignal
hi
zzz
happy new year
orignal
you too
zzz
:)
eyedeekay1
hi
zzz
whats on the list for today?
orignal
nothing from me yet
zzz
I'll add 1) SSU2
orignal
yes
zzz
ok guess that's it for now
zzz
1) SSU2
zzz
I haven't thought about it in a month at least
zzz
so what I want to do is make a list of what is still TODO
zzz
so we can finish up the spec and get to coding pretty soon
zzz
So I'd like to work on that list and bring it next week
zzz
then we can split up the work and get it finished
zzz
sound good?
orignal
yes
eyedeekay1
yes
orignal
we should start from handahsking I guess
zzz
I believe the handshake part is done, but the KDFs probably are not
zzz
but I can't remember
zzz
as usual, takes a while to get it all in my head
zzz
anything else on 1) ?
orignal
if it's done can we strart coding?
zzz
sure
zzz
there's two ways to find out what's NOT done:
zzz
1) review it
zzz
2) start coding ))
orignal
I prefer 2
zzz
your choice
zzz
anything else on 1) ?
zzz
I'll be back with my list of what's not done next week
orignal
no
eyedeekay1
Well it isn't done is it?
eyedeekay1
I've been giving it a lot of homework time and it seems like, for instance, KDF's largely say "exactly as noise" which might be fine, but since I'm catching up to everybody else on what properties that provides, I actually have no idea whether it's done
zzz
it's certainly not done
zzz
but there's really 3 parts:
zzz
1) basic connections
zzz
2) peer test
zzz
3) relay
zzz
1) should be pretty close except for the KDFs
zzz
so maybe if we wanted we could start coding on 1) before finishing the spec for 2( and 3)
orignal
what with KDF?
orignal
shouldn't it be the same as for NTCP2?
zzz
still have to do a split() and more HKDF
orignal
what for?
zzz
for the data phase keys
zzz
I think
zzz
but again, I'll be smarter next week
orignal
but we do split for NTCP2
orignal
for _ab and _ba
zzz
yeah but the data phase is very different... no siphash...
orignal
because we don't need to pass length
zzz
right
orignal
it's in UDP header
orignal
and I guess we can use padding up to MTU
zzz
padding blocks, same as NTCP2, yes
zzz
eyedeekay1, you think you might try to code along with us in Go?
orignal
no
orignal
not the same
orignal
because we are free to fill it up to MTU size
orignal
with no cost
orignal
I'm even not sure if we need it at all
zzz
yes, but you want the padding covered by AEAD
zzz
so we don't want padding outside the blocks
orignal
fine
eyedeekay1
I can try, would be easiest to follow if you could put it on a branch for me
zzz
there's nothing to put, we would all be working in parallel
orignal
yes
eyedeekay1
OK will try to keep up :)
zzz
would be a lot of work and you probably have a lot more todo just to have any transports at all
zzz
anyway
zzz
I thought of a 2), so anything else on 1) ?
eyedeekay1
Yeah but I can at least try, maybe learn where things go and write comments where I don't have something yet
orignal
what's the proposal # ?
eyedeekay1
q59
eyedeekay1
^159
zzz
SSU2 is 159 i2p-projekt.i2p/spec/proposals/159
zzz
and speaking of proposals
zzz
2) UDP Trackers
zzz
I wrote this over the holidays
zzz
I emailed ot to R4SAS since he's working on opentracker
zzz
I don't think orignal cares, but maybe?
zzz
we can discuss it here, or not
zzz
just FYI for now
orignal
huh?
zzz
I've already gotten feedback from BiglyBT
orignal
opentracker is a replacement of postman
orignal
if he goes down again
orignal
will check 160
zzz
we also have ZzzOT which is a plugin only
zzz
I could do ZzzOT standalone if somebody wanted it
orignal
what's that?
zzz
opentracker can't ever be a replacement of postman, it's just an opentracker
zzz
ZzzOT is a java open tracker in a console plugin
zzz
based mostly on the i2psnark code
zzz
very simple
zzz
I wrote it in March 2010
zzz
a few people run it
zzz
anything else on 2) ?
eyedeekay1
I've read it, so far my only commentary is that some of it seems "Optional" so to speak? Like the "fast mode"
zzz
it's all optional, because we don't support it now
zzz
there's two modes, one that's easier if your code supports clearnet udp trackers now, and one that's easier if you're coding it from scratch
zzz
the former will be BiglyBT; the latter will be i2psnark
eyedeekay1
Yeah that's kind of what I was getting at
eyedeekay1
What I'm wondering is if there's an effective way to detect whether one or the other is supported and choose it?
eyedeekay1
And if so, wouldn't that give away your bittorrent client?
zzz
when you announce, you 'give away your bittorrent client' anyway
eyedeekay1
Yeah I guess that's not something a client would spoof so the point is moot. Nevermind, thinking about it like web fingerprinting
zzz
anyway, just FYI for now
zzz
anything else on 2) ?
orignal
no
eyedeekay1
No
zzz
anything else for the meeting?
orignal
busy with kazahstan affairs ))
zzz
ok, good luck with KZ
zzz
thanks guys
eyedeekay1
Thanks zzz
orignal
i2p over ygg works good for them
zzz
nice
orignal
they connect ygg to that ports
orignal
some people run outside KZ including me
orignal
and then run i2p over this link
eyedeekay1
What do you do to handle/configure your yggdrasil links?
eyedeekay1
Are you simply making I2P connections over both the clearnet and ygg links or is it more elaborate than that?
orignal
yggdrasil is another ipv6 adress
orignal
from 200-399 range
orignal
so you you support ygg and your peer has ygg address in RI
orignal
link can be established through ygg
orignal
more interesting if your router doesn't have any transports but ygg
orignal
in this case you must make sure that first hop supports ygg
orignal
same for floodfill
orignal
usually you publish yourself through eploratory tunnels
orignal
because you can't reach a FF directy
orignal
another issue is reseed
orignal
ygg-based reseeds always include few routers with ygg
RN
does each hop in a tunnel need to support ygg?
orignal
no
orignal
only next to you
RN
fun stuff
orignal
why? it just works