mirror of
https://github.com/ChronosX88/netsukuku.git
synced 2024-11-24 19:22:20 +00:00
199 lines
8.1 KiB
Plaintext
199 lines
8.1 KiB
Plaintext
= NTK_RFC 0001 =
|
|
|
|
Subject: Gnode contiguity
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
This text describes a change to the Npv7 about the collision of IPs.
|
|
It will be included in the final documentation, so feel free to correct it.
|
|
But if you want to change the system here described, please contact us first.
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
= The real problems =
|
|
|
|
A collision of IPs happens when two gnodes with the same ID are born separately,
|
|
so when they meet each trough a direct link or trough other nodes many
|
|
problems arise since there are some ambiguities:
|
|
|
|
* In the first case there can be nodes which have the same IP.
|
|
|
|
* In the second:
|
|
A <-> B <-> D <-> A
|
|
After a qspn_round the node B will have two routes to reach the gnode A. But in this case the gnode A isn't a contiguous gnode, so when B wants to reach a node which belongs to A, it will send the packet using only one route which may lead to the A gnode which hasn't the wanted node.
|
|
|
|
So these are the real problems.
|
|
In order to solve them it is necessary that every time two gnodes meets each
|
|
other for the first time, one of them will redo the hook, in fact, this was
|
|
the cause of all.
|
|
When a gnode meets for the first time another gnode is like when a new node joins
|
|
the network: it hooks with the other nodes. The same must be done for the
|
|
gnode.
|
|
|
|
= Hook of gnodes =
|
|
|
|
The hook of two gnodes works in this way: only the gnode which has less
|
|
nodes than the other will change (let's call the first gnode X and the second
|
|
Y). If X and Y have the same number of nodes, the gnode which has the smaller
|
|
gnode_id will change.
|
|
The bnodes of X will start to re-hook, the other nodes will re-hook when
|
|
they notice that a new rnode which belongs to Y comes up.
|
|
Summing up: the bnodes re-hook first, then their rnodes, then the rnodes of
|
|
the rnodes of the bnodes... and so on, all the nodes of the gnode have
|
|
re-hooked.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter that a gnode composed by 2^24 nodes changes all its IPs,
|
|
since it will happen only very few times, i.e. when the gnode of the Europe
|
|
meets that of the America.
|
|
|
|
== Gnode count ==
|
|
|
|
This method requires that the number of nodes present in a gnode has to be
|
|
known, therefore the qspn_pkt which traverse gnodes stores also the number
|
|
of nodes of each traversed gnode.
|
|
|
|
== No first tracer_pkt ==
|
|
|
|
While re-hooking, the first tracer_pkt won't be sent like in the normal hook
|
|
'cause if all the nodes of the gnode which is re-hooking send it, there
|
|
would be a broadcast pkt for each node. The next qspn_round will let
|
|
the other know the routes to reach them.
|
|
|
|
== Re-hook of two equal, not contiguous gnodes ==
|
|
|
|
When there are two nodes with the same ip, or gnodes with the
|
|
same gid, one of them will re-hook, following the same rules we've described,
|
|
but all the packets that the two (g)nodes will send each other will be routed
|
|
by the daemons. For example if A wants to send a packet to A' it stores in the
|
|
pkt the route it received with the last qspn_pkt, the other nodes will forward
|
|
the packet to A' using that route, this is to avoid the problem described
|
|
above.
|
|
|
|
== Re-hook details ==
|
|
|
|
The gnode X is re-hooking at the gnode Y.
|
|
|
|
If the gnode Y hasn't enough free nodes for all the nodes of the
|
|
gnode X then the situation evolves in this way:
|
|
maxYnodes = maxmimum number of nodes in Y;
|
|
curYnodes = current number of nodes in Y (gnode count of Y).
|
|
|
|
diff = maxYnodes - curYnodes;
|
|
|
|
`diff' is the number of new nodes which the gnode Y can accept inside.
|
|
The bnodes of X will say to `diff'# nodes in X to re-hook in the gnode Y, all
|
|
the other non-informed nodes will create a new gnode.
|
|
|
|
Let's analyse the two cases.
|
|
|
|
=== informed nodes ===
|
|
|
|
Remembering how the nodes re-hook (first the bnode, then its rnodes, then the
|
|
rnodes of its rnodes, etc..) we adopt this strategy:
|
|
|
|
join_rate=diff/number_of_X_bnodes - 1;
|
|
|
|
Each bnode of X knows it can inform `join_rate'# nodes, so when its
|
|
rnodes try to re-hook at it, they'll know that:
|
|
|
|
* they will become part of the gnode Y
|
|
* they can inform other `(join_rate-1)/(number_of_links-1)'# nodes
|
|
|
|
The same procedure holds for recursively the rnodes of the rnodes of the
|
|
bnode.
|
|
|
|
When `join_rate' becomes zero the node becomes non-informed.
|
|
|
|
=== non-informed nodes ===
|
|
|
|
The gid of the new gnode they create is based on the hash of their previous
|
|
gid. In this way all the non-informed nodes will be in the same new gnode,
|
|
cause they all generates the same hash. If the new gid is already taken in the
|
|
map they'll increment it by one until they choose a non-taken gnode.
|
|
|
|
== Counting the nodes ==
|
|
|
|
At this point all seems to be solved, but it is not.
|
|
Anyone can modify the qspn, so for example the X which has less nodes than Y
|
|
can fake the number, and Y will be forced to re-hook.
|
|
It this happens anyone can easily force a gnode of 2^24 nodes to change its
|
|
IPs!
|
|
Therefore the problem to be solved now is: how can the gnode Y verify that the
|
|
gnode X has really more nodes?
|
|
|
|
What is the main property of a network which has more nodes than another?
|
|
The computability power!
|
|
|
|
We assume that the average computability power for a gnode of the second level
|
|
or greater is constant. (a gnode of the second level can have 2^16 nodes, in the
|
|
third level 2^24). Therefore the gnode of level 1 won't be checked.
|
|
|
|
Each node of the gnode which has to re-hook (in this case the gnode Y,
|
|
since the gnode X is faking the qspn_pkt) will send a problem to solve to the
|
|
other gnode and it wait for a very small time the reply with the solution in
|
|
it. If the solution is right the node receiving it will re-hook, otherwise
|
|
the gnode X will be banned and excluded from all the qspn floods.
|
|
Only one challenge each T time can occur, where T is proportional to the size
|
|
of the Y gnode. So say that Y has 16milions IPs, if it has already sent a
|
|
challenge it will send another after 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
== Computability power ==
|
|
|
|
But this system leaves opened another kind of attack: the gnode X can target a single
|
|
node in Y, replying only to its reply and making it re-hook. In order to
|
|
prevent this the nodes act in this way:
|
|
|
|
* When a node hooks it creates a RSA key pair, then its rnodes get its public key.
|
|
|
|
* When a node receives a reply to the problem, it broadcasts the reply inside its gnode,
|
|
signing it with its public key. When its rnodes receive the pkt, check the signature.
|
|
If it is valid they update the counter of received replies for the problems sent, then
|
|
they substitute the signature with their own. The packet will propagate
|
|
until it reaches all the nodes of the gnode.
|
|
|
|
* The nodes will start to rehook only when all the replies will be
|
|
received (during the wait time). Since it is not possible that all the reply are
|
|
received it is allowed that 10% of replies are lost.
|
|
|
|
The problem to solve sent by the nodes is:
|
|
f(x) mod k
|
|
where k is a random number between 2^16 and 2^32.
|
|
|
|
f(x) is a function which is not easily computable with mod k.
|
|
When x gets bigger the computation time increases.
|
|
We are still deciding on what f() function using.
|
|
|
|
=== Dumb machines ===
|
|
|
|
Generating the problem doesn't require a high computability power, in
|
|
fact, the daemon will keep 8 or 16 problems cached, generated while the cpu
|
|
isn't used.
|
|
|
|
The machines which have a very low computability power won't reply and even
|
|
try to solve the problems they receive (but only if they can't take the
|
|
computability of the problem).
|
|
|
|
= ANDNA changes =
|
|
|
|
If a same hostname is registered in two separeted gnodes what happens when they meet?
|
|
Which node will mantain the hostname?
|
|
|
|
The node which is in the greater gnode wins: the hash_nodes of the smaller
|
|
gnode, which re-hooks, will reset their uptime counter, in this way when they
|
|
receive the update request from the node (which has changed its IP and must
|
|
update its hname), they ask to the other gnode for the old andna_caches.
|
|
|
|
Moreover the ANDNA_MIN_UPDATE_TIME (the minum amount of time to be waited
|
|
before sending an update os the hname) has to be reduced to
|
|
NEW_HOOK_WAIT_TIME, which is the minimum amount of time to be waited before
|
|
re-hooking. This is necessary, because all the hname updates sent
|
|
before ANDNA_MIN_UPDATE_TIME seconds have elapsed since the last update
|
|
rejected. If a gnode re-hooked, the hostname of its nodes has to be
|
|
updated, therefore the update request must be accepted.
|
|
|
|
= And that's all =
|
|
|
|
That's all folks.
|
|
|
|
Alpt, Katolaz, Mancausoft, Uscinziatu
|
|
----
|
|
related: [Netsukuku_RFC]
|