@eyedeekay
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+T3s|4
+Xeha
+not_bob
+orignal
FreeRider
Irc2PGuest15271
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
T3s|4_
aargh3
acetone_
anon4
cancername
eyedeekay_bnc
profetikla
shiver_1
u5657
weko_
x74a6
zzz
0) Hi
zzz
hi
orignal
hi
zzz
what's on the agenda for today?
orignal
I think release plan
zzz
ok that's 1)
zzz
eyedeekay, you here?
zzz
anything else for the list?
zzz
ok then
zzz
1) release plan
orignal
no from me
zzz
what are your plans?
orignal
so I switch everybody to SSU2 and turn off SSU
orignal
also NTCP2/SSU2 priority is 50/50 now
eyedeekay
Sorry I got disconnected at like the worst second
orignal
*in the next release
orignal
NTCP2 always has priority over SSU2 now
zzz
ok. you releasing on sunday?
orignal
depening when R4SAS has time. most likely yes
orignal
I also see 500+ SSU2 now
zzz
ok
zzz
sunday for i2pd release?
zzz
ok
zzz
we plan for monday
zzz
but after discussion with eyedeekay, we want to make sure android is fully tested before we freeze our checkins on friday
zzz
eyedeekay, you think you'll be ready for a friday checkin deadline?
eyedeekay
Yes I have been testing it pretty intently and should be ready by then
zzz
ditto for windows bundle?
eyedeekay
Yeah that's in good shape AFAIK
zzz
ok. please be checking in your changes as you go so others can eyeball it
eyedeekay
Been getting some feedback on bugs and knocking them down
zzz
that docker ticket going to be done too?
dr|z3d
he's already pushed that to main, no idk?
eyedeekay
There were some things like if you hard-shutdown it would think it was still running, all in the i2p.firefox issues tracker
eyedeekay
Will do
eyedeekay
Yeah I merged it about an hour ago
zzz
ok, as usual please set milestone and close tickets when done. #374 still open. Rather not be the ticket reminder guy
eyedeekay
Yup, just following up with Allen on something then I'll close it
dr|z3d
ah, that's the chap I bounced over to you from github :)
eyedeekay
Thanks for that, I'm a little slow on the github notifications, they kinda flood me, I get like 300 a day
zzz
anything else on 1) ?
zzz
orignal, you know zab won't be signing your binaries, right?
dr|z3d
yeah, you wouldn't have got it on github anyways, he filed the bug with i2p+ :)
orignal
yes
orignal
but it's not a big deal
orignal
we can publish unsigned
zzz
us too
zzz
eyedeekay, you have a 2) go-i2p for us?
orignal
yes
eyedeekay
Yes I do
zzz
2) go-i2p
dr|z3d
prepare for idk's tsunami :)
eyedeekay
Got notes this week so here comes the wall-o-text
eyedeekay
I finally got back to work on go-i2p last Friday, continuing work on the Noise transport, worked on it for most of Friday and most of SundayI can now make a socket, instantiate a noise transport using the socket, and begin to use it to manage "incoming" and "outgoing" handshakes.They don't complete yet, still working on that, but it's more like debugging now and less figuring out how to actually do it, I more or les
eyedeekay
o nowI'm dealing with drawbacks of what I've done here already, I think noiseSocket is intended at times as example of a way to use flynn/noise which is not exactly like I would do it or how a P2P application needs to do itSome of the functions are very long and hard to break down, and they use a different Noise flavor than NTCP2 by default, so I'm breaking things down into steps until I have exactly one step of a N
eyedeekay
ne functionWhich should finally give me what I've been hoping for all along, an interface where I can modify steps(i.e. add padding, eventually turn it into NTCP2) by instantiating it with different versions of an interface-defined function, so I get to think about reusability nowI'm going to attempt to ask a question I don't quite know how to ask yet, and maybe won't know the answer until I try it out for myself...
eyedeekay
tructures can be "nested" if they implement the common interface(`net.Conn`, `net.PacketConn`), and use the common interface to store the information about the socket in their implmentation, and only use the functions of the common interface(This is true)1. That I can instantiate this Noise-framework Transport struct with functions to modify the process in a granular enough way that turning it into NTCP2 is a matter
eyedeekay
functions and plugging them in to an instance of the struct(Sort of like what you would do with inheritance)(which I think is true)2. that I can instantiate it with both a `net.Conn(TCP Socket interface)` and a `net.PacketConn(UDP Socket interface)` because I only use the common features of those 2 interfaces, (Which isn't true yet but I'm thinking about how to do it)Does that potential definition of a moddable Nois
eyedeekay
brary mean that I can approach SSU2 mostly in terms of connection management and peer testing, because the crypto would be similar enough to NTCP2 that I could re-use the custom functions?I'll find out the hard way eventually the first time I have to do it with SSU2, but it would be exciting to have come up with a design that has accelerating returns in such a way.
eyedeekay
Oops linebreaks
eyedeekay
I will try again
eyedeekay
I finally got back to work on go-i2p last Friday, continuing work on the Noise transport, worked on it for most of Friday and most of Sunday
eyedeekay
I can now make a socket, instantiate a noise transport using the socket, and begin to use it to manage "incoming" and "outgoing" handshakes.
eyedeekay
They don't complete yet, still working on that, but it's more like debugging now and less figuring out how to actually do it, I more or less know where the pieces go now
eyedeekay
I'm dealing with drawbacks of what I've done here already, I think noiseSocket is intended at times as example of a way to use flynn/noise which is not exactly like I would do it or how a P2P application needs to do it
eyedeekay
Some of the functions are very long and hard to break down, and they use a different Noise flavor than NTCP2 by default, so I'm breaking things down into steps until I have exactly one step of a Noise handshake, exactly one function
eyedeekay
Which should finally give me what I've been hoping for all along, an interface where I can modify steps(i.e. add padding, eventually turn it into NTCP2) by instantiating it with different versions of an interface-defined function, so I get to think about reusability now
eyedeekay
I'm going to attempt to ask a question I don't quite know how to ask yet, and maybe won't know the answer until I try it out for myself...
eyedeekay
Supposing:
eyedeekay
0. Go network structures can be "nested" if they implement the common interface(`net.Conn`, `net.PacketConn`), and use the common interface to store the information about the socket in their implmentation, and only use the functions of the common interface(This is true)
eyedeekay
1. That I can instantiate this Noise-framework Transport struct with functions to modify the process in a granular enough way that turning it into NTCP2 is a matter of writing a few custom functions and plugging them in to an instance of the struct(Sort of like what you would do with inheritance)(which I think is true)
eyedeekay
2. that I can instantiate it with both a `net.Conn(TCP Socket interface)` and a `net.PacketConn(UDP Socket interface)` because I only use the common features of those 2 interfaces, (Which isn't true yet but I'm thinking about how to do it)
eyedeekay
Does that potential definition of a moddable Noise-over-many-transports library mean that I can approach SSU2 mostly in terms of connection management and peer testing, because the crypto would be similar enough to NTCP2 that I could re-use the custom functions?
eyedeekay
I'll find out the hard way eventually the first time I have to do it with SSU2, but it would be exciting to have come up with a design that has accelerating returns in such a way.
orignal
maybe you can implemnent using TCP socekts only?
zzz
what do you need to answer the questions? a more-knowledgable Go developer?
orignal
rather than Noise
eyedeekay
Not sure, mostly posing as a hypothetical question, like I said I'll find out the hard way when I try to do it one way or the other
eyedeekay
orignal the idea would be to use the most primitive version of the thing, just the abstract functions covered by the interface, in order to allow for this nesting property
zzz
I suggest doing it the easiest way first, then plan for refactor time before you add a SSU2 transport. I don't think you have enough vision of what's coming with a 2nd transport to make it perfect the first time
orignal
if I was you I would wtite it in "C-style"
orignal
without ingterfaces, etc.
zzz
yeah, simpler the better, agreed
eyedeekay
So not even a TCP socket, really, just the framework for one
eyedeekay
bring-your-own-implementation
eyedeekay
Fair enough, just something I was thinking about
zzz
if you were working side by side with some Go Greybeard you could maybe be more structured
zzz
but you have a thousand miles to go, don't get hung up on the first 100 feet, just start walking
eyedeekay
Well Go's sort of all-about-interfaces, the normal way to design functions that take and emit objects is to accept interfaces and emit implementations. I'll hold off on trying anything fancy or hypothetical on the existing interface though
zzz
we can put out another call for help but don't hold breath
zzz
sure, do an interface if that's the go style. just don't try to make it perfect with knowledge of what you need for ssu2
eyedeekay
OK that's how I'll approach it
orignal
but do you have something that works now?
zzz
the java Transport interface has 42 revs in 20 years
eyedeekay
orignal I have something that will compile and break at a point I understand
orignal
like one funny guy wanted to use i2pd's api but didn't know C++ enough
orignal
like lambdas and binds
zzz
anything else on 2) ?
eyedeekay
Nothing else from me, unless there are more questions
zzz
I have a quick 3)
zzz
3) torsocks over socks tunnel
zzz
I'm playing with mods to our socks tunnel so torsocks will work with it
zzz
first to i2p hosts, then maybe via outproxy
zzz
via socks-to-CONNECT conversion
zzz
almost have i2p working
zzz
might be useful, might not
zzz
just FYI
zzz
EOT
eyedeekay
I can think of a use for it
orignal
does it work with i2v6?
dr|z3d
chould be useful routing over an outproxy as a wrapper.
orignal
*ipv6
dr|z3d
*could
zzz
torsocks does not support ipv6
orignal
while tor proxy does
dr|z3d
no support for UDP either.
orignal
e.g. you can't connect to remote ipv6
orignal
*you can
zzz
actually, the tor socks proxy docs say ipv6 doesn't work
orignal
I know because I'm using it
zzz
maybe that's old
orignal
yes it's old
orignal
they have added it couple years ago
Xeha
tor socks with ipv6 works
zzz
cool, that's good to know
Xeha
its now enabled by default
orignal
I know because tried recently
zzz
ok, I have more work to do
Xeha
your old version might support it too, you have to add a parameter: SocksPort 9050 IPv6Traffic
zzz
so probably torsocks supports ipv6 too
zzz
will test at some point
eyedeekay
Android has a thing where it will "proxify" an app but you need a VPNService to do it, which we could make on top of a SOCKS proxy.
eyedeekay
Result would be that we could have a GUI which automatically configures any/all apps to use I2P on Android with such a thing
eyedeekay
Sort of like Orbot
orignal
what's a problem to implement socjs connections natively?
eyedeekay
Like in the apps themselves?
zzz
torsocks does a lot of work to grab the sockets
orignal
like in i2pd
zzz
huh?
orignal
you can specify ntcp2.proxy=socks://127.0.0.1:9050
zzz
no this is on the client side
orignal
and it will create NTCP2 sessions
zzz
sending application traffic through a i2p socks tunnel
orignal
then I have missed your point
orignal
oh I see
orignal
you want torify clearnet traffic
orignal
but through i2p rather than tor
zzz
yeah basically torify
zzz
which is a wrapper around torsocks
zzz
so, just playing around, will report back if I ever get it working
zzz
anything else on 3) ?
Xeha
if you configure torsocks to connect to i2p socks client proxy, torify works over i2p
orignal
no
zzz
it doesn't work for java socks tunnel because of tor socks extensions, that's what I'm working on
eyedeekay
You have to disable something to do with tor's isolation flags don't you? can't remember but if it's an issue I can figure it out
zzz
haven't gotten that far
zzz
anything else for the meeting?
eyedeekay
Nothing from em
eyedeekay
me
zzz
ok then... everybody please spend this week testing and fixing bugs!
zzz
thanks everybody