[tahoe-dev] switching from introducers to gossip?

Tue Jul 3 15:17:15 UTC 2012

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Brian <warner at lothar.com> wrote:
>

... snipping out a lot of useful, clearly written details about the
new introduction and accounting mechanisms ...

> I think we can probably accomodate that. I'm optimizing for our two main use cases: friendnet and paid-service.
>
> In the friendnet, nearly all nodes are both a client *and* a server.

This is not true of the grid I'm most familiar with: volunteergrid2.
In that grid almost every node is either a client or a server --
almost no nodes act as both. (I think. This is just judging from
reading the volunteergrid2-l mailing list.)

Maybe we need two different names, one for the "p2p style" friendnet
that you describe in your letter (partially quoted below) and the
other for the "sysadmins offering one another access to their servers"
friendnet, such as volunteergrid2.

> The main question is whether nodes which are both clients and servers should have a single key, or two separate keys (I prefer a single key, because it makes reciprocal storage-permission grants easier).

I don't understand enough to have an opinion on that specific
question, but in general I think there is a growing tension between
"p2p style" and "client/server style", and the above smells like
baking "p2p style" into the introduction protocol.

> What I really want is to make it super-easy for a new user to get their node running and connected to their friend's existing grid. And, more importantly, for that *first* friend to set up that grid.
...
>   The first friend (Alice) hears about Tahoe from her favorite blog, and installs it with her favorite package manager.
...
>   She hits the "Invite A Friend" button,
...
>   All grid members get a control panel where they can see who else is using their storage, allow/deny access, and control where their own node places shares. By default, anyone who gets invited to join the grid gets full access to storage on all members' servers, but access can be revoked at any time.

I think that's great! I love the idea! I hope you keep working on it,
and I will endeavour to help. If we succeed, it will be the
long-awaited reincarnation of the Mojo Nation dream.

But, it is rather different in deployment/management from what our
current users do with our current software. Maybe it won't work out.
It requires engineering effort to implement and maintain, makes the
behavior of the software harder to predict, and introduces more
complex failure modes.

If possible, I would like to support people continuing to use
Tahoe-LAFS as service administered by diligent sysadmins even while
extending it to be deployable by inattentive end users as you've
envisioned.

I think not too far down this path there might come a time to split
Tahoe-LAFS into separate packages targeted at different deployment
scenarios. Note that the i2p folks appear to have already forked it
for this reason -- in order to maintain different deployment features!
Also note that you, Brian, have published some experimental
forks/variants focused on different deployment patterns.

If you want "user friendly p2p software", then you probably want:

• Which services? Each node operates, by default, multiple services --
storage server, storage client == web gateway, introducer/gossiper,
and in the future other services like relay server (to help get around
incomplete connectivity of the underlying network -- #445).

• Which IP addresses? Nodes automatically detect their own IP
addresses, such as by inspecting the output of "/sbin/ifconfig" or
"route.exe", or opening a TCP connection to some helpful STUNT/ICE
server and asking that server what IP address your packets appear to
be coming from (#50).

• Which connections? Nodes advertise multiple IP addresses / DNS names
(possibly including those auto-discovered as above, plus any that were
manually entered by the user (#754), plus 127.0.0.1 or any
globally-non-routeable IP addresses revealed by ifconfig, and possibly
in the future including indirection through a relay server), peers
attempt to connect to nodes on all advertised IP addresses / DNS names
in parallel, then use whichever connections succeeded.

• How to handle NAT/firewall/inconveniently-behaving-router? Nodes
utilize the latest and greatest Romulan packet technology, such as
UPnP (#49), "NAT hole punching" techniques (#169) or even µTP (#1179)
or relay service (#445) to breeze through such impediments as though
they weren't even there.

• Reverse connections? If a TCP connection is established from node A
to node B, then B can use that in the "reverse direction" to make
requests of A, just as well as A can use it to make requests of B.
This means that if A is behind a firewall which allows outgoing but
not incoming connections to be established, and A established an
outgoing connection to B, then B can use A as a server, but C, which
for some reason didn't get a connection from A, cannot use A as a
server. (#1086)

If you want "sysadmin-friendly software" then you probably want the
opposite of all these features!

• Which services? Each node operates, by default, only the services
that the operator manually configured it to run. Even better you can
install the software sufficient to run a specific kind of node, e.g. a
storage server, without installing the software that would let it run
other servers, such as introducers or storage clients (#1694).

• Which IP addresses? Nodes do not automatically detect their own IP
addresses, but instead use only the IP address that their sysadmin
manually told them to use. This is especially important for tor and
i2p people where any auto-discovered IP address threatens the user's
safety (#517).

• Which connections? You try to establish the prescribed TCP
connection(s) to your server. If that fails, you log/announce failure.
In the future you might even be able to configure it to run
exclusively over HTTP(S) and then pass all of its connections through
your HTTP proxies and Web Services tools (#510, #1007).

(Although sysadmins may actually like the "try to connect to multiple
IP/DNS addresses at once" feature, if it is sufficiently
understandable and controllable to them. It would ease some headaches
provided by the Amazon Web Services EC2 TCP/DNS infrastructure, for
example.)

• How to handle NAT/firewall/inconveniently-behaving-router? If you
can't establish a TCP connection to your prescribed target, then
obviously you should not talk to it. Either some wise sysadmin doesn't
want you to (firewall) or some stupid sysadmin has screwed up the
network config and needs to fix it. In either case you should log
failure and give up immediately.

• Reverse connections? Clients connect to servers. Servers do not
connect to clients, clients do not connect to other clients, and
servers do not connect to other servers (#344). To violate this
principle means you will receive a visit from your keen-eyed sysadmin
who will want to know what the hell you are doing ¹.

Don't get me wrong -- I think the p2p style, which foolscap already
implements part of -- is sweet. I'd like to improve it, in the
interests of making Tahoe-LAFS deployment more automatic for
end-users. However, we should probably pay attention to the fact that
many of our current users do not use those features, and some of them
are actively requesting the ability to turn off those features.

Maybe some kind of friendly fork or more targeted packaging would help
us manage these diverging deployment scenarios?

Regards,

Zooko

¹ https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1010#comment:18

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/49# UPnP
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/50# STUNT/ICE
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/169# tcp hole-punching!
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/344# more
client-vs-server refactoring: servers-only shouldn't subscribe to
storage announcements
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/445# implement relay:
allow storage servers behind NAT
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/510# use plain HTTP for
storage server protocol
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/517# make tahoe Tor- and
I2P-friendly
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/754# merge manually
specified tub location with autodetected tub location
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1007# HTTP proxy support
for node to node communication
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1086# servers should
attempt to open connections to clients
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1179# use μTP
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1694# package client and
server separately