Recent comments in /f/I2P
TheArkive wrote
Reply to I2P+ 2.4.0+ released! by z3d
I've been tinkering with I2P and I2P+ lately. I have a typical firewall up (router) that is difficult to punch a hole in. I read that I2P+ is better with firewalled routers.
Are the recent attacks likely to cause problems in this regard?
I ask because, behind a firewall, my stats are much more active on regular I2P currently than my tests with I2P+.
I consider myself a bit of an I2P/+ noob, though I have tinkered with it a lot on and off for over a decade. I finally have a dedicated home server that I'm trying to setup. So far so good, except for this oddity.
bottticelli OP wrote
Thank you all guys, and especially to whyO, who pointed me exactly to the right thing. Indeed I had to discover this hidden folder and then found all the necessary directories and an index.html file that does recognize changes! Finally...
not_bob wrote
As stated by other people, you should use the Java installer. Don't use the package that's in whatever repo you are using. Those tend to be outdated. Also, I2P+ for the win.
whyO wrote
Reply to comment by bottticelli in Eepsite does not recognize changes in index.html by bottticelli
As a sidenote the .i2p folder is a hidden file folder so you need to tick show hidden files.
z3d wrote
Reply to comment by bottticelli in Eepsite does not recognize changes in index.html by bottticelli
Personally I'd always opt for the Java installer over the repo/deb installation because installing it yourself gives you much more flexibility, for example if you want to sidegrade from I2P to I2P+, or if you want to test development builds, in addition to having all your configuration files in a single location (as mentioned).
You can stop the I2P service and try out the java installer if you don't want to fully commit before you've got comfortable. You could always try the I2P+ installer, details at: http://skank.i2p
Back to your original question, given you're currently running a repo installation, and you appear to be editing files in the correct location, the only thing I can think of that may be causing issues is your browser cache retaining the default index.html file which redirects to /help. You can test this theory by creating a separate file in docroot/ and browsing directly to that instead, e.g. testpage.html .. if this works, clear your browser cache and try accessing the site again. And be mindful of the file permissions on any new files you create.
bottticelli OP wrote
Reply to comment by z3d in Eepsite does not recognize changes in index.html by bottticelli
I checked and double-checked, my ~/ dir does not have the .i2p folder, it comes only as an installed package at /var/lib/i2p/i2p-config/...
Do you think it's a good idea to perform a full re-install and get it manually in the ~/.i2p folder? I'm prety satisfied for now with the /var/lib/i2p/i2p-config/ directory, it seems quite equivalent for an i2p-newbie...
Thank you for the channel recommendation, I'll definitely pay attention to it.
z3d wrote
Reply to comment by bottticelli in Eepsite does not recognize changes in index.html by bottticelli
It's possible that you have 2 different installations of I2P, one installed via a .deb file / repo, and the other installed manually. Check for the presence of an ~/.i2p/ folder, that would indicate you've got a manual install running somewhere.
You might just find that a manual install suits you better, not least because all files related to your configuration live in ~/.i2p/ which makes management easier.
For more realtime help, feel free to jump onto I2P IRC and visit #saltr.
bottticelli OP wrote
Reply to comment by z3d in Eepsite does not recognize changes in index.html by bottticelli
Thanks a lot for your quick answer. I am running i2p on Linux, package install, running as a service.
According to this, the instructions on the default help page of eepsite say that the proper directory for index.html file is /var/lib/i2p/i2p-config/eepsite/docroot/, which is exactly where I am editing my pagefiles. What is really bizarre that before disabling the i2prouter for the first time since it had been working very nicely, showing every change I did with both index.html files in .../docroot and .../docroot/help directory.
Now it looks like the server is getting some other default index.html files from somewhere else. That's awkward, I can't figure it out. What can be the cause? How do you think?
z3d wrote (edited )
Don't edit the eepsite files in your application directory, they serve as a template which is copied to your configuration directory when you first run I2P. Instead you need to edit the files in your configuration directory.
Since you still have the default help files displaying on your site, read the information there relating to the location of the eepsite folder and edit the contents in the location indicated, which varies depending on what operating system you're running I2P on. Once you've edited index.html in eepsite/docroot you may need to clear your browser's cache to see the changes.
z3d OP wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by Updates in I2P+ 2.4.0+ released! by z3d
The minor release updates related to cosmetic fixes for I2PSnark, and an issue with the sticky sidebar at less than 1500px viewport width; networking is unaffected.
As for build tunnel success, we appear to be under some sort of attack right now so expect things to behave abnormally. Reduced build success percentages and increased transit tunnel requests have been observed. Under normal operation, a non-firewalled I2P+ router should see around 70-80% build success after approximately 30m of uptime.
To address the varying size of the update zip files that you raised on rocksolid, the additional translations have added around 2MB to the pack200 (skank.i2p/dev/i2pupdate.zip) files, more where pack200 isn't being used. And from time to time, the GeoIP database is included in an update, which adds another 3MB or so to the size.
Regarding minor releases being pushed to the release update channel, these may happen on account of bugs, a new, stable feature being made available pre-release, or because a security issue is being addressed in an update that merits an out-of-band update.
In short, if you don't mind the occasional bug, then the /dev/ update path will give you the new stuff sooner, while the stable/release update path will only give you minor version updates when the new features are sufficiently tested and deemed robust, or to address functional or security bugs that may arise from time to time.
One last thing to mention: if you haven't previously installed I2P+ on a system running a non .deb / repo I2P, and you're performing an upgrade from I2P to I2P+ (not using the full installer), you will need to install from the release url: skank.i2p/i2pupdate.zip before enabling develoment updates from skank.i2p/dev/i2pupdate.zip to ensure you have the pack200 library, otherwise updating from the /dev/ path will fail.
Updates wrote
Reply to I2P+ 2.4.0+ released! by z3d
There were some wild updates 4-5 times but the version stayed to 2.4.0-2+ which was the number that was downloaded from gitlab since the Postman was the plain 2.4.0-0 and could not update at 3% build ratio. Are those peers reseeds? The build rate is very good after 24 hours 45%.
Updating from 2.3 is/was a no go. The build ratio was 2-5% plus you had interference from the official i2p. I will port to a few different test OSes and Java versions. The security is improved (I had mitigations for the fixes and did not affect me).
i2pd improved too. Just by being on Ramble droped the build to 38%.
FreefallHeavens wrote (edited )
Reply to MuWire project is shut down by DcscZx5idox
If you're running Windows 64-bit I've uploaded a build made from the very last commits that embeds router version 2.4.0. There's no need for relays as a list of frequently-online peers is already included, you just set up your initial profile and give it a bit and it will integrate with the rest of the network. Each peer tells the node about other peers, so as long as a few are reachable a picture of the entire network is eventually rebuilt.
In addition if you happen to also have I2P installed on your system you can run a script file from the folder that will automatically paste the modules of the current I2P install into Muwire. This isn't needed right now since 2.4.0 is the latest router, but it will keep the node easy to update on future releases, even if Muwire itself doesn't get any new updates. The last official commits had embedded router version 1.9.0.
The torrent to download this is on my website, same as my username, just add .i2p. Package is 107MB. Each install stores its profile directly in the app folder itself, be sure to read the Readme.
By its last official releases and commits the app had matured quite nicely and many of its features work very well. It would be a shame if it went to waste.
MrDuck wrote
Reply to Upcoming I2P 2.40 Release Date by z3d
Seems like a good update, very nice!
Caucus0909 OP wrote
Reply to comment by z3d in Subscribing to I2P RSS feeds by Caucus0909
I'm trying to connect to http://ramble.i2p/f/Privacy/new.atom and yes I can view it in my browser/file manager
Rambler wrote
Reply to Upcoming I2P 2.40 Release Date by z3d
Keep up the good work!
z3d wrote
Reply to Subscribing to I2P RSS feeds by Caucus0909
I've tried setting it up by using http proxy pointing to localhost:4444 but it gave error and didn't work.
Can you provide some more information? What RSS feed are you trying to connect to? Can you view the feed in your web browser?
R_N wrote (edited )
Thank you for your continued work on this!
Anyone who wants to help with testing is welcome to try my development builds at I2Peek-a-Boo.i2p
I'm mostly keeping up with the version bumps, or ask me about it on IRC2P.
Fair warning: There are a lot of changes going on and bugs are present, so I wouldn't recommend testing on your main I2P router.
Morpheus wrote
Just want to say thanks for all the hard work going into the project!!
wtf wrote
LMAO I had two posts deleted here, in less than 5 days
wtf wrote (edited by a moderator )
Love to test, tried to clone the git repo and it didn't work, says not found, assume this is the issue:
Aug 12, 2023, 1:28:12 AM ERROR [ients #46253] p.client.streaming.impl.Packet: Written 64 size 88 for 6lD3ug/1xpOqQ: #5 CLOSE ACK 0 DELAY 0 SIG ECDSA_SHA256_P256
java.lang.Exception: moo
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.Packet.verifySignature(Packet.java:831)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.ConnectionPacketHandler.verifySignature(ConnectionPacketHandler.java:656)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.ConnectionPacketHandler.verifyPacket(ConnectionPacketHandler.java:547)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.ConnectionPacketHandler.receivePacket(ConnectionPacketHandler.java:53)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.PacketHandler.receiveKnownCon(PacketHandler.java:204)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.PacketHandler.receivePacketDirect(PacketHandler.java:109)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.PacketHandler.receivePacket(PacketHandler.java:96)
at net.i2p.client.streaming.impl.MessageHandler.messageAvailable(MessageHandler.java:80)
at net.i2p.client.impl.I2PSessionDemultiplexer.messageAvailable(I2PSessionDemultiplexer.java:46)
at net.i2p.client.impl.I2PSessionMuxedImpl$MuxedAvailabilityNotifier.run(I2PSessionMuxedImpl.java:408)
at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:833)
at net.i2p.util.I2PThread.run(I2PThread.java:103)
not_bob wrote
Multihoming is an obscure case?
Also, good changes. Thank you for your hard work.
Morpheus wrote
Reply to comment by just_a_ken in In search of information by JohanPsico30
i2pforum.i2p is up again now. it seemed to be down for a few day's but it's back up again!!
nook_ wrote (edited by a moderator )
Reply to In search of information by JohanPsico30
There is an imageboard that is fairly active:
z3d OP wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by TheArkive in I2P+ 2.4.0+ released! by z3d
If you're talking about a hardware router, you should be able to port forward from the router's internet facing interface to an internal IP address that's hosting your I2P/I2P+ router. You only need to do that for the public I2P port, for both TCP and UDP. You'll find your router operates much, much better if you can overcome the firewalling of your I2P port. The assigned port is indicated on: http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet
Regarding general activity, I2P+ is much more aggressive in blocking, banning or otherwise ignoring routers on the network that may be participating in attacks or are poorly configured and maintained, so that's probably why you're seeing a difference in network traffic. Keep an eye on the banned peers counter and the tunnel build success percentage in the sidebar in I2P+, these will give you some idea of the network health.