โ RNS 1.4.2 released https://pypi.org/project/rns/
๐ฌค rns.recipes
top
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
โ Case for a new (missing) interface mode โ
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Started by Anonymous ยท 1mo ago
Page 1 of 2
[ 1 ] Next >
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-1
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ Anonymous #1 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 1mo ago
I want to propose a new interface mode that seems to be missing for a specific but
typical use case: An node thats both connected via a slow interface like LoRa as well as
via a fast one like Backbone interface. The usual configuration is to set the fast one to
Boundary mode and the slow one to Access Point mode. This prohibts the fast interface to
spam the slow interface with announces. But it also severly limits the capabilities of
the slow interface. It will now (according to my knowledge) also prohibit the propagation
of announces coming to the slow interface (via LoRa for example). If the node has a slow
interface only the mode would be set to Gateway, and it would propagate everything it
receives as usual. But once the announce reaches a node thats also connected to a fast
interface the announce will not be relayed further. This acts like a blockade and will
split networks announce-wise if there is no other way around the AP mode node.
I have seen RTNode "solve" this by [adding some sort of firewall
logic](https://github.com/jrl290/RTNode-HeltecV4/releases/tag/v1.0.28), but I dont fully
trust this project and would like to see a solution in the reference implementations as
well.
Maybe there is a good reasonig for things working as they are right now, I would love to
hear them. Right now it seems to me that there should be another mode (lets call it
ap-boundary ) that only propagates announces from other
ap-boundary interfaces as well as gateway interfaces, but announces coming from
boundary interfaces would not be propagated. Maybe (probably) there is a better way to
solve this, I would like to hear your thoughts about this.
โ 1 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-2
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ CarL_PetErson #2 โ
โ 9d40d76f7bb24c0e โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 1mo ago
This made me realise, that I still don't fully understand announce propagation rules.
Especially when announcements are rebroadcast on the same interface they came in.
I think they are rebroadcast on the same interface if transport is enabled, the mode is
something other than AP and it's some kind of radio interface like Rnode. If so, you
could use a combination of boundary and roaming for that usecase. But I'm not 100% sure.
Some more fine grained options would be nice. Like some setting per interface what gets
send where and which interface is set to transport. On the other hand stuff works ok as
it is and other things might be more important.
โ 0 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-3
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ aetherlab #3 โ
โ 509723a0ccb60610 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 1mo ago
https://rns.recipes/forum/showcase/reticulum-announce-propagation-simulator
โ 0 โ 0 โค 1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-4
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ Anonymous #4 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 1mo ago
aetherlab wrote:
> https://rns.recipes/forum/showcase/reticulum-announce-propagation-simulator
It would be super nice to have the option to have one of the central "hub" nodes to have
an AP mode interface for the connection to the other node. It would show my point exactly
:) it would result in two separate networks, at least in one direction.
โ 0 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-5
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ Anonymous #5 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 1mo ago
Ok, thanks to aetherlab I figured it out. You can try it in the
[simulator](https://rns.moscow/announce-sim.html): Add a intermediary node, set both
directions to AP (you can imagine a third direction from the intermediary going to the
testnet via boundary mode) and announce from one of the two network segments. The node
acts as a blocker between those segments.
โ 0 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-6
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ Anonymous #6 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 1mo ago
In case others have this question as well: one workaround to the limitation described is
to have another interface in between the slow and fast interface. For example:
โข a microreticulum transport node with lora (full mode) and a udp interface (full mode)
โข a raspi with an UDP interface connected to the microreticulum node (access_point
mode) and a backbone interfave to the testnet (boundary mode)
That way the lora interface is still propagating lora announces and is also able to get
connections from the testnet without broadcasting the testnets announces to the lora
network.
In theory this could also be implemented on a single device, for example a raspi with a
regular rnode connected. You would have to run a second rnsd and connect them both in the
above mentioned way. Never tried that, but thats what the shared instance is for I think.
โ 0 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-7
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ Anonymous #7 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 29d ago
Seems like there will be a new interface in the next release! Just found this in the
latest commits:
> The ` internal mode designates interfaces that belong to an
network different from any marked as boundary . Announces
from a boundary interface will not propagate to
interfaces set as internal` , but announces *will* propagate from
internal *to* boundary .
Devices on the internal side of the network will still be
able to resolve paths to destinations across the boundary when needed, since recursive
path requests are enabled for internal ` mode interfaces by default.
โ 2 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-8
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ jrl290 #8 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 29d ago
Didn't see this post til now, but I just want to give me two cents from what I've
experienced working on RTNode
The one thing I don't think can be handled purely with announce propagation is RAM (or
other system resources). Reticulum kind of expects you to just keep track of every
destination and every path on the network. That works fine for even moderate spec
computers, but definitely not the ESP32.
That's why I took the "Firewall" approach. RTNode doesn't just tell the interface,
"please don't send me these announces". It says "if you're not on my list, you are
dropped at the front door." Not just announces, either. No packet gets through
I personally don't mind an elegant solution like the announce filtering. I believe it is
supposed to be a kind of mutually beneficial cooperation contract. However, I am of the
firm belief that no node is to be trusted. Hence I feel it is important not only for a
node to take individual responsibility to protect itself, but for such custom
implementations to be an expected part of the ecosystem
In my view, Reticulum must be designed with sheer physics as its security. Relying on
cooperation is a recipe for vulnerability
โ 0 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-9
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ Anonymous #9 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 29d ago
jrl290 wrote:
> Didn't see this post til now, but I just want to give me two cents from what
I've experienced working on RTNode
>
> The one thing I don't think can be handled purely with announce propagation is RAM
(or other system resources). Reticulum kind of expects you to just keep track of every
destination and every path on the network. That works fine for even moderate spec
computers, but definitely not the ESP32.
>
> That's why I took the "Firewall" approach. RTNode doesn't just tell
the interface, "please don't send me these announces". It says "if
you're not on my list, you are dropped at the front door." Not just announces,
either. No packet gets through
>
> I personally don't mind an elegant solution like the announce filtering. I believe
it is supposed to be a kind of mutually beneficial cooperation contract. However, I am of
the firm belief that no node is to be trusted. Hence I feel it is important not only for
a node to take individual responsibility to protect itself, but for such custom
implementations to be an expected part of the ecosystem
>
> In my view, Reticulum must be designed with sheer physics as its security. Relying on
cooperation is a recipe for vulnerability
I dont really understand how things you are describing work. Interface modes dont need
any lists of destinations, its about general behaviour of the interface, right? The
behaviour you are describing with RTNode sounds more like "keeping track of destinations"
actually :) But I must not get something. How is this saving on limited resources?
โ 0 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post-10
โญโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฎ
โ jrl290 #10 โ
โฐโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโฏ
โธ 29d ago
Anonymous wrote:
> I dont really understand how things you are describing work. Interface modes dont need
any lists of destinations, its about general behaviour of the interface, right? The
behaviour you are describing with RTNode sounds more like "keeping track of
destinations" actually :) But I must not get something. How is this saving on
limited resources?
The way Reticulum works is: dest announces, node sees dest and inserts into path and
public key tables, node passes announce forward. Every announce that gets received gets
database entries.
That's where the interface modes come in. Now supposing you have a transport node sitting
between your small branch of network and hundreds of nodes on the other side. You do not
want hundreds of announces flooding your small branch of network, especially if it's low
bandwidth, so you set up the transport node to filter announces for you. That transport
node does its job, keeping track of hundreds of destinations. And when you want to send
to one of those addresses, you just send to the transport node and it handles the rest
But what if that transport node doesn't have the memory to track all of those devices?
When a new announce comes in and there's no memory left, the transport ejects the oldest
member from the table. That works fine, unless there are more simultaneous active devices
than there are table slots. Then the slots just rotate indefinitely. When your small
network device tries to reach out, the transport node may or may not have a valid entry
for the destination.
The standard solution to that is, the packet is dropped, the sender declares the path
dead, a path request is posted, that path request triggers a fresh announce by the
destination or a cached replay by an intermediary node, and the path is rediscovered. But
your transport node still doesn't have enough memory to hold all of the announces on the
network, so you end up with the same problem again
Despite the number of interface modes there are, in the standard mechanism, you are sent
a set of announces and you put them in the path table. And you might ask, why not just
keep the announces you want and discard the others?
And my answer to that is: yes
So RTNode keeps two whitelists: LAN side destinations, and the destinations referenced in
any packet that contains a LAN side destination.
I don't necessarily understand interface modes as an oversight. I see it as a network
optimization. Something to say "hey, you over there can conserve bandwidth on this".
That's why it's part of the protocol. I think it's still perfectly within spec to have
other means of filtering that don't require agreement with any other nodes
โ 1 โ 0 โค 0
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
[ 1 ] Next >
Page 1 of 2
โ INFO โ Identify to this node to post. How?
bottom