Skip to content

Conversation

@cortze
Copy link
Contributor

@cortze cortze commented Oct 5, 2022

Description

This PR materializes the discussion in libp2p/specs#451 increasing the provider record's default TTL or ProvideValidity from 24h to 48h based on RFM17.

Motivation

The measurements from RFM17 were quite promising for the steady provider record's liveness gathered in the IPFS live network. Based on the average of 70% of online PR holders and 70% of PR holders being among the 20 closest peers for over +48 hours, we suggest increasing the republish interval for the CIDs and extending the expiration time to help reduce part of the overhead that providing large sets of CIDs implies.

Why 48 hours?
Since the republish interval is intended to be increased up to 22h by a twin PR in ipfs/kubo#9326, setting it to 48h of PR's TTL makes sure that providers have enough margin to publish back the PR before they expire.

Modifications

Increase ProvideValidity from 24h -> 48h

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.

lgtm, this PR is in sync with spec changes proposed in libp2p/specs#451

@marten-seemann any concerns about this and #794?
Are you able to make a release of go-libp2p-kad-dht with this, so I can include it in Kubo 0.18(ipfs/kubo#9417)?

(If you are busy with other stuff I can do the release chores, but need your review here and on the linked spec change)

@lidel lidel changed the title increase expiration time for Provider Records feat: increase expiration time for Provider Records to 48h Dec 8, 2022
@lidel lidel changed the title feat: increase expiration time for Provider Records to 48h feat: increase expiration time for Provider Records to 48h (RFM17) Dec 11, 2022
@lidel
Copy link
Member

lidel commented Dec 11, 2022

We pinged various stakeholders but no concerns were raised here and in libp2p/specs#451
I am merging this and will release as go-libp2p-kad-dht v0.20.0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants