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

[Feature] block nodes running older version in p2p network layer #1544

Closed
1 of 8 tasks
LeoHChen opened this issue Sep 9, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed
1 of 8 tasks

[Feature] block nodes running older version in p2p network layer #1544

LeoHChen opened this issue Sep 9, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request low priority low priority

Comments

@LeoHChen
Copy link
Contributor

LeoHChen commented Sep 9, 2019

Problem/limitation At Hand

When nodes are not up to date, peers should drop the link with the outdated/bad peers.

Which component?

  • consensus
  • deploy script
  • wallet
  • explorer
  • node script
  • test automation
  • demo app
  • p2p

Proposed Solution

We are checking the version of the node anyway. If we see nodes are running lower version, we should just disconnect the nodes. However, there is some risk of no being able to create a connected p2p network. We need a better design and thinking on this one.

@LeoHChen LeoHChen added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 9, 2019
@gaia
Copy link

gaia commented Sep 9, 2019

If

  1. the notice to upgrade nodes is at least 10 days in advance
  2. and the network upgrade requires that all nodes connected past the deadline run the new version (mandatory upgrade)
  3. and the outdated nodes cause adverse effects on the nodes that are up to date (we don't care about adverse effects on the outdated nodes)

then by all means, block the older versions.

consensus requires what % of nodes running the current version? as long as this %+1 upgraded, the network won't break. this is the case with any fork. if not enough nodes upgrade, maybe the node operators do not agree with the upgrade, but we haven't seen any contentious forks in harmony. and I doubt we will come across one.

PS: this is obviously valid for hard forks. but it is also valid for soft forks as long as #3 is true

@LeoHChen LeoHChen reopened this Nov 4, 2019
@mindstyle85
Copy link

@LeoHChen not sure about this one, can we close it?

@LeoHChen
Copy link
Contributor Author

LeoHChen commented Apr 3, 2020

This is still relevant, maybe used to validate the p2p message, not high priority though.

@LeoHChen LeoHChen added the low priority low priority label May 13, 2020
@LeoHChen
Copy link
Contributor Author

no need to support this

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request low priority low priority
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants