## Proposed Changes
The current `/lighthouse/nat` implementation checks for _zero_ address updated messages, when it should check for a _non-zero_ number. This was spotted while debugging an issue on Discord where a user's ports weren't forwarded but `/lighthouse/nat` was still returning `true`.
* wip
* fix router
* arc the byroot responses we send
* add placeholder for blob verification
* respond to blobs by range and blobs by root request in the most horrible and gross way ever
* everything in sync is now unimplemented
* fix compiation issues
* http_pi change is very small, just add it
* remove ctrl-c ctrl-v's docs
## Issue Addressed
Cleaner resolution for #4006
## Proposed Changes
We are currently subscribing to core topics of new forks way before the actual fork since we had just a single `CORE_TOPICS` array. This PR separates the core topics for every fork and subscribes to only required topics based on the current fork.
Also adds logic for subscribing to the core topics of a new fork only 2 slots before the fork happens.
2 slots is to give enough time for the gossip meshes to form.
Currently doesn't add logic to remove topics from older forks in new forks. For e.g. in the coupled 4844 world, we had to remove the `BeaconBlock` topic in favour of `BeaconBlocksAndBlobsSidecar` at the 4844 fork. It should be easy enough to add though. Not adding it because I'm assuming that #4019 will get merged before this PR and we won't require any deletion logic. Happy to add it regardless though.
## Issue Addressed
Cleans up all the remnants of 4844 in capella. This makes sure when 4844 is reviewed there is nothing we are missing because it got included here
## Proposed Changes
drop a bomb on every 4844 thing
## Additional Info
Merge process I did (locally) is as follows:
- squash merge to produce one commit
- in new branch off unstable with the squashed commit create a `git revert HEAD` commit
- merge that new branch onto 4844 with `--strategy ours`
- compare local 4844 to remote 4844 and make sure the diff is empty
- enjoy
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
This is a correction to #3757.
The correction registers a peer that is being disconnected in the local peer manager db to ensure we are tracking the correct state.
On heavily crowded networks, we are seeing many attempted connections to our node every second.
Often these connections come from peers that have just been disconnected. This can be for a number of reasons including:
- We have deemed them to be not as useful as other peers
- They have performed poorly
- They have dropped the connection with us
- The connection was spontaneously lost
- They were randomly removed because we have too many peers
In all of these cases, if we have reached or exceeded our target peer limit, there is no desire to accept new connections immediately after the disconnect from these peers. In fact, it often costs us resources to handle the established connections and defeats some of the logic of dropping them in the first place.
This PR adds a timeout, that prevents recently disconnected peers from reconnecting to us.
Technically we implement a ban at the swarm layer to prevent immediate re connections for at least 10 minutes. I decided to keep this light, and use a time-based LRUCache which only gets updated during the peer manager heartbeat to prevent added stress of polling a delay map for what could be a large number of peers.
This cache is bounded in time. An extra space bound could be added should people consider this a risk.
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Adds self rate limiting options, mainly with the idea to comply with peer's rate limits in small testnets
## Proposed Changes
Add a hidden flag `self-limiter` this can take no value, or customs values to configure quotas per protocol
## Additional Info
### How to use
`--self-limiter` will turn on the self rate limiter applying the same params we apply to inbound requests (requests from other peers)
`--self-limiter "beacon_blocks_by_range:64/1"` will turn on the self rate limiter for ALL protocols, but change the quota for bbrange to 64 requested blocks per 1 second.
`--self-limiter "beacon_blocks_by_range:64/1;ping:1/10"` same as previous one, changing the quota for ping as well.
### Caveats
- The rate limiter is either on or off for all protocols. I added the custom values to be able to change the quotas per protocol so that some protocols can be given extremely loose or tight quotas. I think this should satisfy every need even if we can't technically turn off rate limits per protocol.
- This reuses the rate limiter struct for the inbound requests so there is this ugly part of the code in which we need to deal with the inbound only protocols (light client stuff) if this becomes too ugly as we add lc protocols, we might want to split the rate limiters. I've checked this and looks doable with const generics to avoid so much code duplication
### Knowing if this is on
```
Feb 06 21:12:05.493 DEBG Using self rate limiting params config: OutboundRateLimiterConfig { ping: 2/10s, metadata: 1/15s, status: 5/15s, goodbye: 1/10s, blocks_by_range: 1024/10s, blocks_by_root: 128/10s }, service: libp2p_rpc, service: libp2p
```
I've needed to do this work in order to do some episub testing.
This version of libp2p has not yet been released, so this is left as a draft for when we wish to update.
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
Our custom RPC implementation is lagging from the libp2p v50 version.
We are going to need to change a bunch of function names and would be nice to have consistent ordering of function names inside the handlers.
This is a precursor to the libp2p upgrade to minimize merge conflicts in function ordering.
- there was a bug in responding range blob requests where we would incorrectly label the first slot of an epoch as a non-skipped slot if it were skipped. this bug did not exist in the code for responding to block range request because the logic error was mitigated by defensive coding elsewhere
- there was a bug where a block received during range sync without a corresponding blob (and vice versa) was incorrectly interpreted as a stream termination
- RPC size limit fixes.
- Our blob cache was dead locking so I removed use of it for now.
- Because of our change in finalized sync batch size from 2 to 1 and our transition to using exact epoch boundaries for batches (rather than one slot past the epoch boundary), we need to sync finalized sync to 2 epochs + 1 slot past our peer's finalized slot in order to finalize the chain locally.
- use fork context bytes in rpc methods on both the server and client side
## Issue Addressed
Implementing the light_client_gossip topics but I'm not there yet.
Which issue # does this PR address?
Partially #3651
## Proposed Changes
Add light client gossip topics.
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
I'm going to Implement light_client_finality_update and light_client_optimistic_update gossip topics. Currently I've attempted the former and I'm seeking feedback.
## Additional Info
I've only implemented the light_client_finality_update topic because I wanted to make sure I was on the correct path. Also checking that the gossiped LightClientFinalityUpdate is the same as the locally constructed one is not implemented because caching the updates will make this much easier. Could someone give me some feedback on this please?
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: GeemoCandama <104614073+GeemoCandama@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue Addressed
#3704
## Proposed Changes
Adds is_syncing_finalized: bool parameter for block verification functions. Sets the payload_verification_status to Optimistic if is_syncing_finalized is true. Uses SyncState in NetworkGlobals in BeaconProcessor to retrieve the syncing status.
## Additional Info
I could implement FinalizedSignatureVerifiedBlock if you think it would be nicer.
## Issue Addressed
Partially addresses #3651
## Proposed Changes
Adds server-side support for light_client_bootstrap_v1 topic
## Additional Info
This PR, creates each time a bootstrap without using cache, I do not know how necessary a cache is in this case as this topic is not supposed to be called frequently and IMHO we can just prevent abuse by using the limiter, but let me know what you think or if there is any caveat to this, or if it is necessary only for the sake of good practice.
Co-authored-by: Pawan Dhananjay <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
## Proposed Changes
With a few different changes to the gossip topics in flight (light clients, Capella, 4844, etc) I think this simplification makes sense. I noticed it while plumbing through a new Capella topic.
This PR adds some health endpoints for the beacon node and the validator client.
Specifically it adds the endpoint:
`/lighthouse/ui/health`
These are not entirely stable yet. But provide a base for modification for our UI.
These also may have issues with various platforms and may need modification.
## Issue Addressed
New lints for rust 1.65
## Proposed Changes
Notable change is the identification or parameters that are only used in recursion
## Additional Info
na
## Issue Addressed
Updates discv5
Pending on
- [x] #3547
- [x] Alex upgrades his deps
## Proposed Changes
updates discv5 and the enr crate. The only relevant change would be some clear indications of ipv4 usage in lighthouse
## Additional Info
Functionally, this should be equivalent to the prev version.
As draft pending a discv5 release
* add capella gossip boiler plate
* get everything compiling
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io
Co-authored-by: Mark Mackey <mark@sigmaprime.io>
* small cleanup
* small cleanup
* cargo fix + some test cleanup
* improve block production
* add fixme for potential panic
Co-authored-by: Mark Mackey <mark@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
I missed this from https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3491. peers were being banned at the behaviour level only. The identify errors are explained by this as well
## Proposed Changes
Add banning and unbanning
## Additional Info
Befor,e having tests that catch this was hard because the swarm was outside the behaviour. We could now have tests that prevent something like this in the future
