public inbox for nncp-devel@lists.stargrave.org
Atom feed
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete•org>
To: Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@danisch•de>
Cc: nncp-devel@lists.cypherpunks.su
Subject: Re: via path question
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:50:30 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ecoygfnt.fsf@complete.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1bd7cce0-9268-4f12-bac6-7c7143646e3f@danisch.de> (Hadmut Danisch's message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2025 00:43:05 +0200")

Hi Hadmut,

You can actually do it both ways.

For the quux smarthost, I use the second feature so that leaf nodes
don't each have to know the full routes to each other.

I wouldn't really see it as a security issue, since both A and B have to
be configured to be able to route to C to use A via B,C.  A can't make B
send to a node it doesn't know about.

- John


On Sun, Dec 14 2025, Hadmut Danisch wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> if I want do send from A to D over other nodes
>
> A -> B -> C -> D
>
>
> what is the correct and intended configuration for target D?
>
>
> on A  via [B,C]
>
>
> or
>
>
> on A via [B]  and on B via [C] ?
>
>
>
> Since via accepts an array,  setting via [B,C] on A should work, but isn't this
> a security problem, if configuration on A can tell B what to do ? Shouldn't via
> just set the next hop?
>
> regards
>
> Hadmut

      reply	other threads:[~2025-12-13 23:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-13 22:43 via path question Hadmut Danisch
2025-12-13 22:50 ` John Goerzen [this message]