16:18 < jrandom> weekly status notes posted up @ http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-September/000929.html
16:18 <+postman> hello
16:18 < forest> hi
16:18 < jrandom> lets jump on in to 1) 0.6.0.6
16:19 < jrandom> the status notes cover pretty much what i've got on my mind for 0.6.0.6. anyone have any questions/concerns/comments to bring up?
16:19 <+postman> jrandom: observation:
16:19 <+postman> jrandom: much higher bandwidth consumption
16:20 <+postman> jrandom: all within the limits and running fine - but my routers really getting warm now
16:20 * nickless_head makes similar observation
16:20 < jrandom> aye, me too, i think its likely due to an increase in bt and i2phex traffic
16:20 <+postman> what increase, with just 80 active torrents on the tracker? :)
16:20 < jrandom> heh
16:21 <+postman> but its good to see, that the network does not crumble
16:21 <+postman> irc is pretty stable altho the router does 50k/s atm
16:21 < jrandom> mos' def'. i'm not even logged into freenode anymore, as irc here is stable enough
16:22 * postman hands the mike back
16:22 < jrandom> cool, thanks. i think there's definitely still room to go for bandwidth efficiency, but it seems reasonable atm
16:22 < jrandom> (hopefully the thing i'm working on will help, but more on that when its ready)
16:22 < fox> <mihi> you should definitely distinguish between OK (Nat) and Err (Nat)...
16:23 < fox> <mihi> or is your hole punching almighty?
16:23 < jrandom> heh
16:23 < jrandom> well, ERR-SymmetricNAT is and will continue to be an ERR
16:23 < fox> <mihi> or is it impossible to check whether it was successful?
16:24 < fox> <mihi> ok
16:24 < jrandom> but ERR-Reject is due to restricted cone, while full cone nats work fine
16:24 < jrandom> (since i2p uses only one source port for everyone, as long as you're on i2p you'll have a hole punched for the full cone)
16:25 < jrandom> still, it is better when people forward their ports so they don't need introducers, as that lets them also become introducers themselves
16:25 < fox> <mihi> as long as there are no nasty iptables rules (like drop UDP to 8887 from IP addresses divisable by 7 :) )
16:25 < jrandom> heh
16:26 < jrandom> and unfortunately, some people do have b0rked configurations like that (*cough*peerguardian*cough*)
16:26 < jrandom> someone the other day was wondering why i2p didn't work, even though they had their firewall dropping packets from all .edu peers
16:27 <+Ragnarok> .edu? That's pretty random
16:27 < jrandom> yeah, made no sense to me, in so many ways
16:27 < jrandom> but, c'est la vie
16:27 * nickless_head sings: We don't need no education...
16:28 < jrandom> heh
16:28 < jrandom> ok, anyone else have anything on 1) 0.6.0.6?
16:29 < jrandom> if not, moving on to 2) i2phex 0.1.1.27
16:29 < jrandom> not much to say here beyond whats in the mail either...
16:30 <+postman> jrandom: there was no positive response in the mentioned forums either :(
16:31 <+postman> jrandom: i will forward your statusnotes and links - maybe the readers get the point
16:31 < jrandom> postman: people are of course able to use whatever they want, but I don't recommend the binary release from legion as the source doesn't match the binary, and the launcher is entirely closed source
16:32 < jrandom> now that we've got i2phex on a web accessible location, built from cvs, hopefully that will reduce people's reliance on that
16:33 < jrandom> (perhaps if you want to post the irc log from #i2p-chat an hour or two ago between legion and i, that might help explain the situation to people more completely)
16:34 < jrandom> ok, anyone else have anyhing on 2) i2phex, or shall we move on to 3) migration
16:34 * postman has a look
16:34 < jrandom> there's not much really to add for 3), its more of an fyi
16:34 < jrandom> so, perhaps we can jump quickly to 4) ???
16:34 < jrandom> anyone have anything else they want to bring up for the meeting?
16:35 <+Complication> Migration?
16:36 < jrandom> if you didn't notice, great :)
16:36 < jrandom> we moved from one colo to another
