Recent comments in /f/I2P

blueraspberryesketimine OP wrote

Reply to comment by cumlord in Getting started in I2P by blueraspberryesketimine

I decided to try running i2p+ on the same equipment as a comparison to see if it works better for me than i2pd. I have some issues with it.

First, I can't get it to use the wrapper. I'm running it in alpine linux aarch64. Looking at the i2prouter script, it doesn't seem to have any way to handle aarch64, though interestingly it does still have the older ARM architectures in the script. I suspect this is why it doesn't want to use the wrapper, even though the wrapper itself does support aarch64. I was able to work around this temporarily with runplain.sh but it's not quite ideal as I'd like to allocate more ram to i2p+. I also want to get jbigi loaded in, but I suspect the wrapper might be needed for that to work anyway.

Anyway, my findings so far in comparing the two on this aarch64 relay:

  • i2pd is way faster to bring up and tear down, though we expected that
  • i2pd uses next to no ram.
  • i2pd is rocket fast but then seems to eventually stop responding to http after being used for a while
  • i2p+ is heavy, but not as bad as I thought it would be. A diskless alpine system is running quite happily at less than 1G of ram used. Seeing as this board has 4GB on it, I still have some room to test further after I can allocate more to the JVM after fixing the wrapper.
  • i2p+ is pretty! :)
  • i2p+ definitely has a higher tunnel success rate the i2pd but it also takes a lot longer to get that high. It's camping out at 83% now. I never got that high with i2pd.
  • i2p+ creates significantly fewer tunnels than i2pd. i2pd would have over 6600 tunnels created at times, just giving away all the bandwidth I had to offer it and coming nowhere near taxing the CPU or memory available on the host. i2p+ seems much more conservative in how it participates with the network. Whereas i2pd would build fast, it would also shed a lot of its tunnels whereas i2p+ can maintain connections better. I suspect I could improve that behavior in i2pd by assigning limits but I'm still feeling this thing out, trying to find where the limits are.
2

blueraspberryesketimine OP wrote

Reply to comment by cumlord in Getting started in I2P by blueraspberryesketimine

Its actually running on a separate physical device. I wanted to put in the media server itself, but my container network skills aren't great and that server get taken down from time to time for me to mess with. Uptime matters here, so it made sense to keep i2p separated from the server.

1

blueraspberryesketimine OP wrote

Reply to comment by cumlord in Getting started in I2P by blueraspberryesketimine

I better isolated the i2pd machine on my network just in case something goes wrong with it and I don't notice right away. While doing so, I noticed roughly half the connections to the i2p relay port are being blocked by my firewall. Strangely, the firewall is set to allow all on that port. It says it's blocking based on ingress firewall's IP filtering rules.

What rules? I didn't give it any rules. If it's unsolicited, it's blocked, but the i2p relay is requesting those connections so the firewall shouldn't be blocking them, right?

1

cumlord wrote

Reply to comment by blueraspberryesketimine in Getting started in I2P by blueraspberryesketimine

i'm not sure about SAM since this is qbit, but with I2CP running either biglybt or snark can be glitchy on separate machines especially with i2pd, java seems to handle random disconnects better where i2pd might not recover, possibly due to latency. As far as i know I2CP is intended to be used on the same machine. you can do this but it runs much better with java routers from what i've found where i think i2pd is best if you keep it on the same machine.

possibly things to check - trackers are working since no dht, in a good swarm, tunnel quantity/number of hops. like are peers available or is it a throughput issue

1

c00kiepast3 wrote

Reply to Getting started in I2P by blueraspberryesketimine

I used to play around with different bittorrent clients for weeks when I first found out about I2P. I tried i2psnark, qbittorrent, XD, BiglyBT but now I have settled using qBittorrent-nox with SAM protocol to i2pd node. Both are on same computer, because I read from IRC that its not good to have them on seperate computers. I mean your i2pd node and your qbittorrent client.

I have disabled DHT, PEX and other stuff in qBittorrent and I only download torrents from the Postman Tracker.

3

altonen wrote

Reply to comment by c00kiepast3 in Emissary - a new Rust implementation of the I2P protocols by idk

I agree with what zzz said. The project is in the early phase so it's still missing a lot of features and "institutional knowledge" that java and i2pd have. I hope that by EoY most of the missing features have been implemented and the most glaring bugs have been fixed.

All help with testing and development is deeply appreciated.

3

zzzi2p wrote

Reply to Emissary - a new Rust implementation of the I2P protocols by idk

re: safe to use? depends on your risk tolerance and threat model.

The code quality and completeness is very high. Rust is a "safe" language that eliminates a lot of possible issues. But this is a one-person project that just appeared out of nowhere, it will need a lot of testing and review to gain confidence. There's a lot of subtleties in i2p protocols that, if implementers are not careful, may lead to deanon, crashes, etc.

It does have UPnP/NATPMP to open firewall ports. if you're not on a direct IP and it can't open your firewall ports, it's not going to work well, because its SSU2 implementation isn't done, so it can't do peer test and relay.

For now, I wouldn't use it for eepsite hosting if you're concerned about possible deanon. Safe for running with qbittorrent or i2psnark-standalone? Depends on your threat model.

It also may not "look" exactly like other routers, so it may be apparent that there's an emissary running on your IP.

For brave people, please start testing and opening github issues for any problems you find.

4

sovereign wrote (edited )

Reply to I2P 2.8.0 Released by idk

I have noticed that with release 2.8.0, SAM applications are negatively impacted. I have a SAMv3 application that worked fine on release 2.7.0, it no longer works on 2.8.0.

I'm trying to find out where to file bug reports:

http://i2pforum.i2p/viewtopic.php?t=1322&sid=c7fcb2c2c880bc8199e69acba2ab5215

I'm investigating the issue. Details can be found at:

http://sovereign.i2p/sam-issue.html

1

cumlord wrote

Reply to Running multiple I2P routers using a VPN's port forwarding feature? by soulseeker

if you're talking about running a reseed server through a vpn i think you could do this but i wouldn't. pretty sure you need an outernet domain name with ssl cert. if the vpn has a dedicated ip this could probably be setup, or look into doing reverse proxy through one of those dynamic dns things. never tried that so no idea if or how it'd work, but probably be easier running off a vps somewhere sans vpn. i know everyone loves cloudflare but that could also be an option https://homepage.np-tokumei.net/post/notes-i2p-reseed-over-cloudflare/

1

Meow wrote (edited by a moderator )

Reply to I2P+ 2.7.0+ Released! by z3d

I2P 2.7.0 has also been released.

Access to information from the console and applications has been improved. Issues have been fixed in I2PSnark and SusiMail search. The netDB search embedded into the router console now operates in a more intuitive and useful way. Minor improvements have been made to diagnostic displays in advanced mode. [...]

1