## Issue Addressed
N/A
## Proposed Changes
Adds a flag for disabling peer scoring. This is useful for local testing and testing small networks for new features.
It is possible that when we go to ban a peer, there is already an unbanned message in the queue. It could lead to the case that we ban and immediately unban a peer leaving us in a state where a should-be banned peer is unbanned.
If this banned peer connects to us in this faulty state, we currently do not attempt to re-ban it. This PR does correct this also, so if we do see this error, it will now self-correct (although we shouldn't see the error in the first place).
I have also incremented the severity of not supporting protocols as I see peers ultimately get banned in a few steps and it seems to make sense to just ban them outright, rather than have them linger.
## Issue Addressed
Add support for ipv6 and dual stack in lighthouse.
## Proposed Changes
From an user perspective, now setting an ipv6 address, optionally configuring the ports should feel exactly the same as using an ipv4 address. If listening over both ipv4 and ipv6 then the user needs to:
- use the `--listen-address` two times (ipv4 and ipv6 addresses)
- `--port6` becomes then required
- `--discovery-port6` can now be used to additionally configure the ipv6 udp port
### Rough list of code changes
- Discovery:
- Table filter and ip mode set to match the listening config.
- Ipv6 address, tcp port and udp port set in the ENR builder
- Reported addresses now check which tcp port to give to libp2p
- LH Network Service:
- Can listen over Ipv6, Ipv4, or both. This uses two sockets. Using mapped addresses is disabled from libp2p and it's the most compatible option.
- NetworkGlobals:
- No longer stores udp port since was not used at all. Instead, stores the Ipv4 and Ipv6 TCP ports.
- NetworkConfig:
- Update names to make it clear that previous udp and tcp ports in ENR were Ipv4
- Add fields to configure Ipv6 udp and tcp ports in the ENR
- Include advertised enr Ipv6 address.
- Add type to model Listening address that's either Ipv4, Ipv6 or both. A listening address includes the ip, udp port and tcp port.
- UPnP:
- Kept only for ipv4
- Cli flags:
- `--listen-addresses` now can take up to two values
- `--port` will apply to ipv4 or ipv6 if only one listening address is given. If two listening addresses are given it will apply only to Ipv4.
- `--port6` New flag required when listening over ipv4 and ipv6 that applies exclusively to Ipv6.
- `--discovery-port` will now apply to ipv4 and ipv6 if only one listening address is given.
- `--discovery-port6` New flag to configure the individual udp port of ipv6 if listening over both ipv4 and ipv6.
- `--enr-udp-port` Updated docs to specify that it only applies to ipv4. This is an old behaviour.
- `--enr-udp6-port` Added to configure the enr udp6 field.
- `--enr-tcp-port` Updated docs to specify that it only applies to ipv4. This is an old behaviour.
- `--enr-tcp6-port` Added to configure the enr tcp6 field.
- `--enr-addresses` now can take two values.
- `--enr-match` updated behaviour.
- Common:
- rename `unused_port` functions to specify that they are over ipv4.
- add functions to get unused ports over ipv6.
- Testing binaries
- Updated code to reflect network config changes and unused_port changes.
## Additional Info
TODOs:
- use two sockets in discovery. I'll get back to this and it's on https://github.com/sigp/discv5/pull/160
- lcli allow listening over two sockets in generate_bootnodes_enr
- add at least one smoke flag for ipv6 (I have tested this and works for me)
- update the book
## 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>
## 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>
## 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
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>
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
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
