Last updated


Add a way for floodfills to advertise support for optional sig types. This will provide a way to support new sig types over the long-term, even if not all implementations support them.


The GOST proposal 134 has revealed several issues with the previously-unused experimental sig type range.

First, since sig types in the experimental range cannot be reserved, they may be used for multiple sig types at once.

Second, unless a router info or lease set with an experimental sig type can be stored at a floodfill, the new sig type is difficult to fully test or use on a trial basis.

Third, if proposal 136 is implemented, this is not secure, as anybody can overwrite an entry.

Fourth, implementing a new sig type can be a large development effort. It may be difficult to convince developers for all router implementations to add support for a new sig type in time for any particular release. Developer's time and motivations may vary.

Fifth, if GOST uses a sig type in the standard range, there's still no way to know if a particular floodfill supports GOST.


All floodfills must support sig types DSA (0), ECDSA (1-3), and EdDSA (7).

For any other sig type in the standard (non-experimental) range, a floodfill may advertise support in its router info properties.


Ref: http://i2p-projekt.i2p/en/docs/spec/common-structures http://i2p-projekt.i2p/en/docs/spec/i2np

A router that supports an optional sig type shall add "sigTypes" property to its published router info, with comma-separated sig type numbers. The sig types will be in sorted numerical order. Mandatory sig types (0-4,7) shall not be included.

For example: sigTypes=9,10

Routers that support optional sig types must only store, lookup, or flood, to floodfills that advertise support for that sig type.


Not applicable. Only routers that support an optional sig type must implement.


If there are not a lot of floodfills supporting the sig type, they may be difficult to find.

It may not be necessary to require ECDSA 384 and 521 (sig types 2 and 3) for all floodfills. These types are not widely used.

Similar issues will need to be addressed with non-zero encryption types, which has not yet been formally proposed.


NetDB stores of unknown sig types that are not in the experimental range will continue to be rejected by floodfills, as the signature cannot be verified.

See Also

Proposal 134 Proposal 136