-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Rework relay options #7228
Comments
Priority, status, plus potential assignment to milestone please? |
How about using default Linux terminology here?
|
Calling it "relay" in some places and "traffic forwarding" in others is going to be really confusing. |
Are there any options to control how a node advertises itself as providing relay services? For example, can I configure node A on my network to provide relay services only to other nodes on my LAN (and also configure the other nodes on my LAN to use node A as a relay)? |
Please ask questions on discuss.ipfs.io
|
@Stebalien Should this be closed now that |
Yep! |
The current relay options are confusing and dangerous. Setting
EnableAutoRelay
andEnableRelayHop
will cause nodes to advertise themselves as relays to the rest of the network.At a minimum, we should make
EnableAutoRelay
do what it looks like it should do: automatically use public relays. Then, we can:EnableRelayHop
. I'm concerned users have enabled this without having any idea what it does.PublicRelayMode
option with three variants: "disabled", "enabled", "i am an isp" (what EnableRelayHop + PublicRelayMode currently do).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: