Skip to content
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

p2p-circuit addresses are still printed with /ipfs/QmRelay/p2p-circuit/p2p/QmTarget #6868

Closed
Stebalien opened this issue Feb 4, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws)

Comments

@Stebalien
Copy link
Member

Version information:

master

Description:

ipfs swarm peers is listing addresses of the form /ipfs/QmRelay/p2p-circuit/p2p/QmTarget. This should never happen.

@Stebalien Stebalien added the kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws) label Feb 4, 2020
@Stebalien Stebalien mentioned this issue Feb 5, 2020
21 tasks
@vipulnayyar
Copy link

Hi @Stebalien, although this issue has already been assigned, I decided to look more into this as it seemed interesting. How do I reproduce this issue on the master branch?

I have only encountered addresses in the incorrect format of '/ipfs/QmRelay/p2p-circuit/p2p/QmTarget', when I was mistakenly running ipfs daemon v0.4.23 with ipfs swarm cmd client built from master.

However, when I correctly ran the ipfs daemon and the ipfs swarm client, both built from the latest master, I could see the p2p-circuit addresses listed in the form '/ip4/206.116.153.42/tcp/4003/p2p/QmXow5.../p2p-circuit/p2p/QmUHmrr...'

How can I reliably recreate this issue on master? Right now, I am just starting the daemon and waiting for peers to increase to over 170, after which p2p-circuit addresses start appearing in the list. I am unable to see any peer addresses in the list with the keyword 'ipfs' in it.

@Stebalien
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks!

when I was mistakenly running ipfs daemon v0.4.23 with ipfs swarm cmd client built from master.

Yeah, that's a different issue.

How can I reliably recreate this issue on master?

I'm not able to reliably reproduce it either. However, I haven't fixed it so I assume it's still an issue. On the other hand, I'm no longer seeing this in the wild.

@hsanjuan
Copy link
Contributor

hsanjuan commented Mar 5, 2020

Then I guess let's close it and re-open if things change?

@vipulnayyar
Copy link

@hsanjuan, I picked this issue to work on because it was listed as one of the TODOs in #6776 for 0.5 release. Maybe it can also be removed from that list.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants