[22:03] <jrand0m> 0) hi
[22:03] <jrand0m> 1) router dev status (0.2.4)
[22:03] <jrand0m> 2) RTCP
[22:03] <jrand0m> 3) i2p.net
[22:03] <jrand0m> 4) ???
[22:03] <jrand0m> 0) hi
[22:03] * jrand0m waves
[22:03] <jrand0m> this is meeting $num
[22:03] <duck> .
[22:03] * mihi_backup has joined #i2p
[22:03] <jrand0m> logs will go up onto the wiki once we're through
[22:03] * Robert has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
[22:04] * baffled has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
[22:04] <jrand0m> ok, moving on (hopefully battling ping timeouts)... 1) router dev status
[22:04] * baffled has joined #i2p
[22:05] <jrand0m> some more bugfixes this week, and a large part of the delay and associated message loss has been narrowed down the PHTTP transport
[22:06] <jrand0m> to avoid repeating myself from the email [http://i2p.dnsalias.net/pipermail/i2p/2004-January/000113.html], so, does anyone have any questions / comments on the dev status?
[22:06] <duck> yes
[22:06] <jrand0m> sup?
[22:06] <duck> seems that still after a while the whole tunnel thing locks up
[22:07] <duck> then madman2003 and human have to shout at me
[22:07] <duck> and restart everything
[22:08] <jrand0m> hmm, yeah, I think thats due in large part to the fucked up nature of the 0.2.3.5 PHTTP code.  There are some routers out there that are only reachable via PHTTP, and if they are still running plain 0.2.3.5, they won't be able to talk to each other (but will be able to talk to you)
[22:08] * jar has joined #i2p
[22:08] <madman2003> i'd like to say one thing(a bit offtopic): a 404 page in 0.3 would be nice, because a lot of browsers get confused if they don't get an expected response
[22:08] <jrand0m> that means that whenever you build a tunnel through them, your tunnel is unreachable
[22:09] * DrWoo has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
[22:09] <jrand0m> duck> thats one of the reasons on the 'pro' camp for releasing a 0.2.3.6 asap, with 0.2.4 coming out with RTCP in few days
[22:09] * DrWoo has joined #i2p
[22:09] <duck> ok, so that is phttp part?
[22:09] <jrand0m> (the 'con' camp being led by "upgrading sucks")
[22:10] <jrand0m> hmm?  the phttp code has been patched in cvs
[22:10] <duck> what con camp?
[22:10] <jrand0m> madman2003> I think baffled might be looking at that :)
[22:10] <madman2003> upgrading is easy :)
[22:10] <kaji> upgrading rox
[22:10] <madman2003> with i2pmgr it's even easier
[22:11] <madman2003> just a touch of a button :)
[22:11] * Robert has joined #i2p
[22:11] <baffled2> I'm looking at it madman might be a while!
[22:11] <jrand0m> well, the con side is that if there's a release (in, say, a few hours), people will have to do another upgrade in, say, 2-3 days
[22:11] <jrand0m> if thats fine, i can wrap up a 0.2.3.6 quite easily
[22:11] <duck> updating makes me happy
[22:12] <kaji> what does .6 fix?
[22:12] <baffled2> I'd say go for it most of us don't have any problem with upgrading regularly.
[22:12] <madman2003> i'd upgrade every 24 hours if that does it
[22:12] <jrand0m> 0.2.3.6 fixes PHTTP to be, er, functional
[22:12] <jrand0m> ok cool
[22:13] <jrand0m> i'll get a 0.2.3.6 wrapped up after the meeting then (perhaps 1-2 hours to clean up) and post on the list when its ready
[22:13] <jrand0m> (as well as here)
[22:13] * Masterboy has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
[22:14] <jrand0m> ok, anything else for the dev status, or shall we jump to 2) RTCP
[22:15] * jrand0m jmp 2
[22:15] <madman2003> you can always get back to it
[22:15] <jrand0m> right right
[22:15] <jrand0m> ok, rtcp is coming along, and I'm hoping to have the client side libs working after a few more hours of coding
[22:16] <jrand0m> Kirk brought up a good point on the list for chaining - in theory, all of these relays could have an inter-relay connection to build a virtual relay network
[22:16] <jrand0m> but, well, that essentially grows into IRC, or another full on anon network
[22:17] <madman2003> you mean totally eliminating PHTTP?
[22:17] <jrand0m> while thats possible (and quite interesting), I think for now we'll just have the stand alone RTCP relay (and/or integrated relay in the router)
[22:18] <jrand0m> madman2003> no, PHTTP will stay (if only for time sync and people behind HTTP only firewalls), but RTCP provides a faster, low latency alternative
[22:18] <madman2003> (i'd intergrate in the router, because that would spread the load of the relaying)
[22:18] <jrand0m> agreed
[22:19] <jrand0m> basically the topology I forsee with the RTCP is everyone who can have a reachable address will run their own RTCP relay (with their own targetId on that), plus anyone who doesn't have a reachable address can just pick any of those that do and create a target on them
[22:20] <jrand0m> these relays essentially become switchboards for peer comm, but in a fully distributed fashion (since none of them depend in any way on any of the other ones)
[22:20] <madman2003> or use multiple relays if the there are more relays then people who need relays
[22:20] <baffled2> How would folks find the various rtcp relays?
[22:20] <madman2003> phttp :)
[22:20] <jrand0m> right, thats a good point - routers can create targets on multiple relays
[22:20] <jrand0m> baffled> rtcp relays will be listed in a router's RouterInfo (published in the networkDb)
[22:21] <jrand0m> basically a router will see "oh, router XYZ has an rtcp address at 127.0.0.1:8999 targetId 3123" and then connect to 127.0.0.1:8999 and request its own target
[22:23] <madman2003> something i just thought off: auto restart of tunnels every 12 or 24 hours
[22:23] <madman2003> and an auto restart of router + the rest every few days
[22:24] * jrand0m is working on making it so that wouldn't be necessary
[22:24] <jrand0m> one of my routers on a linux box has been up without interruption for several days
[22:24] <mihi> madman2003: you can add your own threads to the jvm to quit it after 12 hours
[22:24] <jrand0m> (and it only went offline when I upgraded it)
[22:24] * madman2003 has to go
[22:25] <jrand0m> l8r madman2003
[22:25] <madman2003> have a nice meeting
[22:25] * madman2003 has quit IRC (12( www.nnscript.de 12:: NoNameScript 3.8 12:: www.XLhost.de 12))
[22:25] <jrand0m> ok, anything else on rtcp?
[22:26] <duck> no, sounds good
[22:26] <jrand0m> ok, moving on to a brief one
[22:26] <jrand0m> 3) i2p.net.  
[22:26] <jrand0m> nuff said
[22:26] <jrand0m> 4) ???
[22:26] <jrand0m> anyone have anything else?
[22:28] <duck> .
[22:28] * jrand0m senses a record breaking 26 minute meeting
[22:29] <Reskill> lol
[22:29] * Reskill ambles in
[22:29] <jrand0m> 'mornin Reskill
[22:29] <jrand0m> ok, I'm going to get working on pushing out a 0.2.3.6, then crunch away on the rtcp code for a 0.2.4
[22:30] <jrand0m> if there is nothing further...
[22:30] <Reskill> Oo...
[22:30] <baffled2> Okay, I'll see you all when I get home.
[22:30] * jrand0m *baf*'s the meeting closed