From ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com  Mon Oct  8 10:57:02 2018
From: ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com (ZmnSCPxj)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 10:57:02 +0000
Subject: [Lightning-dev] RouteBoost: Adding 'r=' fields to BOLT 11
	invoices to flag capacity
In-Reply-To: <504b31cc-fcb9-f433-32e9-00de9456461b@mattcorallo.com>
References: <877ejg9avy.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<504b31cc-fcb9-f433-32e9-00de9456461b@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <QLmGK7gFT8IqOloz4b1J-mpD24RQj6KBYxHnEmFyNlxJav6xljeclpHJ6hCFrJqytJ-JblWzwZIGh7rt0YiheR_mEjXn0HC5AvGraU3U8eA=@protonmail.com>

Good morning Matt,

In my implementation that might get into c-lightning (i.e. my pull request, which I should probably update some time before universe heat death) the r= fields are preferred, but if unable to find routes to the nodes indicated in the r= fields, we always fall back to our known node map before failing completely.

Basically, we retry each r= field until all routes to the node indicated have failed (no more viable routes), then move to the next r= field (if exists), or if no more r= fields, try finding the node itself directly in the node map.



Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

??????? Original Message ???????
On Monday, October 8, 2018 12:38 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:

> Resending due to ML bugs....
>
> On a related note, it would be nice to get some clarity on appropriate
> usage of the r= field here.
> The way I had implemented it initially was that if an invoice had an r=
> field any publicly-discovered last-hop routes would be ignored as the r=
> data is most likely more up-to-date than any public route rumor information.
> However, if it's only used as a hint and only one or two out of
> potentially many channels are included in it, that may make little sense.
>
> Not really sure what the appropriate guidance should be, probably
> something like SHOULD prefer to use invoice-r=-provided-hints over
> publicly-discovered routes however MAY use other last-hops in case a
> substantially better route is known?
>
> Matt
>
> On 09/19/18 22:10, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >         I'm considering a change to c-lightning, where `invoice` would
> >
> >
> > automatically append an 'r' field for a channel which has sufficient
> > incoming capacity for the amount (using a weighted probability across
> > our peers).
> >
> >          This isn't quite what 'r' was for, but it would be a useful
> >
> >
> > hint for payment routing and also potentially for establishing an
> > initial channel. This is an issue for the Blockstream Store which
> > deliberately doesn't advertize an address any more to avoid
> > centralization.
> > Thoughts welcome!
> > Rusty.
> >
> > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev