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

feat!: ask delegated-ipfs.dev in addition to DHT and cid.contact #50

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

hacdias
Copy link
Member

@hacdias hacdias commented Mar 6, 2024

This PR makes two changes:

  1. Changes the default from ask from cid.contact to delegated-ipfs.dev
  2. Adds delegated-ipfs.dev as a default router for the server

Tackles task in #24.

@hacdias hacdias requested a review from lidel March 6, 2024 12:28
@hacdias hacdias self-assigned this Mar 6, 2024
Copy link
Member

@lidel lidel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Needs some clarifications / policy before we merge this.

@@ -32,19 +32,19 @@ Default: `true`

Comma-separated list of other Delegated Routing V1 endpoints to proxy provider requests to.

Default: `https://cid.contact`
Default: `https://cid.contact,https://delegated-ipfs.dev`
Copy link
Member

@lidel lidel Mar 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to discuss (here or in #24 (comment)) a policy for cases like this one, because whatever we decide here, the same PR could/should be applied to Kubo and Rainbow.

On one hand, makes sense to leverage delegated-ipfs.dev more, allows people to benefit from public caching utility that supports peer and ipns routing and Amino DHT proxy (the https://cid.contact/routing/v1 endpoint does not provide any of these things).

Do we

  • (A) keep both here and accept duplicated IPNI (cid.contact) results for improved resiliency,
  • (B) or is it better to remove cid.contact from being hardcoded in our software (since we are not ones operating that IPNI instance) and hide it behind our caching proxy, which already talks to cid.contact and caches results?

cc @aschmahmann

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Question: how do we avoid cycles in waterworks-infra when someguy with this PR is deployed to delegated-ipfs.dev?
I think we want to avoid a situation where someguy is sending query to itself. Is the plan to set SOMEGUY_PROVIDER_ENDPOINTS="https://cid.contact" SOMEGUY_PEER_ENDPOINTS="" SOMEGUY_IPNS_ENDPOINTS="" in waterworks-infra?

That should be enough, but if we ever need a more generic solution, we could look into ipfs/specs#426.

@lidel lidel added the status/blocked Unable to be worked further until needs are met label Mar 7, 2024
@lidel lidel marked this pull request as draft May 6, 2024 12:11
@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented May 6, 2024

We can keep the discussion to #63. A PR will be made once a decision is made.

@hacdias hacdias closed this May 6, 2024
@hacdias hacdias deleted the default-endpoints branch May 6, 2024 13:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status/blocked Unable to be worked further until needs are met
Projects
No open projects
Status: 🎉 Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants