Hi,
I'm using i2p 2.9.0-0 on a fast machine with a very fast internet connection. Trying to contribute as much routing capacity as possible to the network, besides setting high bandwith limits I adjusted some of the advanced options:
i2np.ntcp.maxConnections=12000
i2np.udp.maxConnections=12000
router.maxParticipatingTunnels=30000
Memory limit is set to "wrapper.java.maxmemory=8192" in wrapper.config.
This results in lots of banned peers, at the moment my router shows about 6000 known and about 16000(!) banned peers. The router's resources are far from being maxed out in terms of bandwith, memory and cpu usage.
Taking a closer look at the banned peers, the router shows that most of them are temporarily banned because they are "slow". Is this intended for some reason? This way my router doesn't accept connections from most known peers on the network.
High number of banned peers
-
Confused_Opossum
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 14 Jul 2025 06:24
Re: High number of banned peers
That's normal, it's a result of us continuing to identify a variety of botnets, maliciously-modified routers, ancient versions, and other bad behavior. We're also reducing ban times so the banlist doesn't get too large.
-
Confused_Opossum
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 14 Jul 2025 06:24
Re: High number of banned peers
Thanks for the reply.
Does that mean that what I'm trying to do is not possible for now? The limits I mentioned above are not nearly maxed out. I have another router running on a much slower machine with far less available bandwith and mostly autodetected settings. In fact, the fast machine doesn't contribute much more bandwith to the network than the slow one (fast one is also also acting as floodfill, slow one isn't).
Does that mean that what I'm trying to do is not possible for now? The limits I mentioned above are not nearly maxed out. I have another router running on a much slower machine with far less available bandwith and mostly autodetected settings. In fact, the fast machine doesn't contribute much more bandwith to the network than the slow one (fast one is also also acting as floodfill, slow one isn't).
Re: High number of banned peers
The network will use what it needs. In times of high congestion or attacks, it may need more than it does now. Also, connection count and tunnel count aren't by themselves great metrics to use for "contribution".
There's also good reasons not to let one router "swallow" all the traffic in the network, that's not good for anonymity or reliability. We're also not like Tor where there's a small number of relays.
We're working on improvements to how routers request and allocate bandwidth, it's a long-term project, but the goal is to have routers that need a lot of bandwidth router through routers that have a lot of bandwidth.
There's also good reasons not to let one router "swallow" all the traffic in the network, that's not good for anonymity or reliability. We're also not like Tor where there's a small number of relays.
We're working on improvements to how routers request and allocate bandwidth, it's a long-term project, but the goal is to have routers that need a lot of bandwidth router through routers that have a lot of bandwidth.