libp2p / libp2p/specs

Do we care about address length vs message length in circuit-relay?

Open
#29 6 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
No language data
Stars
1.8k
Forks
320
Avg merge
11d 15h
Merged PRs (30d)
1

Description

Now that we have a proper protobuf spec for the circuit-relay messages, do we care about individual addresses length? It seems like we should restrict the overall size of the protobuf message, but other than that, checking for address length doesn't seem to add any value anymore. @vyzo proposed 4096 as an arbitrary message size, which I think is reasonable.

Given this, lets remove the address length restriction in favor of a message size.

@diasdavid @whyrusleeping @lgierth

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by reviewing the circuit-relay protobuf specification and the code that validates circuit-relay messages. Confirm how address-length and overall message-size checks are currently applied. Done means the per-address restriction is removed and an overall protobuf message limit of 4096 is enforced.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
networking
Issue type
Refactor
Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.