-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Get node ILP Address from parent #248
Comments
A few things (many are CCP related): From the ILDCP Spec:
Based on that and your comment:
This makes me believe that it only makes sense for a node to ever have 1 parent. Is that the case, @emschwartz? example topology (for my reference)
Assuming only child/parent relations, a payment such as Based on that, shouldn't Peer relations have priority over Child/Parent ones? https://github.com/interledger-rs/interledger-rs/blob/master/crates/interledger-ccp/src/server.rs#L798-L799 Currently, we have two booleans, Does this mean we can remove Should we also add a blacklist on the CCP Service which is loaded in memory/from the store so that Could we remove the Do we also want an account's address to dynamically adjust if any of their parents changes their parent connection or thier own ILP Address? e.g. A: ( |
My understanding is that a node could have multiple parents (though I would be open to restricting that) as long as it only performs IL-DCP with one of them. In Java I just choose the first account that is a parent, but we should probably have a smarter way to indicate which parent to use? Or else maybe restrict the number of parent nodes? |
I would say, "no" because one of the primary purposes of the "child" classification is to indicate that the parent node doesn't really trust the routing tables of that child peer. If a parent node does trust a child, it should classify that account as a
That's my understanding. JS and Java implementations do this -- although in fairness, Java is a copy of JS, and just because JS did it doesn't mean it's correct. |
Curious to hear more opinions here, especially from @emschwartz. I suppose it could be the case that there is some other reason to accept routing updates from a child peer? |
I opened separate issues to discuss the questions @gakonst brought up.
Sounds reasonable to me. |
Right now the
node
needs to be configured with an ILP address. If you are running a node as a "child" of another, it would be easier and more reliable to automatically query the parent node for the ILP address. (This would also mean that with #186, the ILP address of each account on the node will be correct without any configuration, whereas right now you can mess it up by using an un-routable address)ilp_address
optional in thenode
configurationilp_address
is not provided, make an ILDCP query to get the addressParent
s? If there are multiple, which one should we use?)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: