raulk

Context: binding implementors are missing a version number in the protobufs. Could be added only in `IDENTIFY`? Should be an easy add.

@Stebalien our DHT is public and any node can join it as long as they support the DHT protocol. Most peers are IPFS nodes, or higher-level applications of IPFS. However,...

I might have misexplained myself. This solution is suitable when using random walks as a peer discovery gadget (not peer routing) for locating peers that speak a certain protocol.

Something like this would mitigate the effects of “accidental merging of DHTs”, which we’ve already had in the past.

Yes, the Seeder/Snapshotter abstractions were designed in that way precisely to be called we need to recover from a poisoned/blank routing table. There is also the `FallbackPeers` construction, which should...

@lnykww we have a WIP PR that modularises the dialer (#88) so that applications (and subsystems like autorelay) can modify the behaviour. Under that model, you could inject a `Planner`...

@Stebalien I think I could've explained some aspects better in the description, but I had to rush through. We are very much aligned. The registry is effectively a compression table,...

> My suggestion is that we just create it automatically on first use, storing the table to disk iff the peerstore is persisted. Otherwise, sub-components need to coordinate. Without lifecycle...

@Stebalien I've generified this to address (and in the future, peer) labels.

This kind of version-based protocol negotiation has proven important in devp2p (Ethereum), where the core protocol has evolved from eth62 to eth63 in the last years. What if –internally– we...