Skip to content

Refuse to create a DirectedChannelInfo if either directional update is missing #1824

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
TheBlueMatt opened this issue Nov 2, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3038
Closed

Refuse to create a DirectedChannelInfo if either directional update is missing #1824

TheBlueMatt opened this issue Nov 2, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3038
Milestone
0.1

Comments

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

As a followup to #1815 and #1735 we should extend #1815 to check for the presence of both directions, rather than only the requested direction, before constructing a DirectedChannelInfo. This avoids routing over channels that we consider removal candidates as of #1735.

@naumenkogs had already started work on this in #1735, so he may want to pick this up.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt added this to the 0.1 milestone Nov 2, 2022
TheBlueMatt added a commit to TheBlueMatt/rust-lightning that referenced this issue May 6, 2024
@TheBlueMatt
Ignore partially-pruned channels during routing
29f8a54 
If we prune one side of a channel's `ChannelUpdateInfo` that means
the node hasn't been online for two weeks (as they haven't
generated a new `channel_update` in that time). In such cases, even
if we haven't yet pruned the channel entirely, we should definitely
not be treating these channels as candidates for routing.

Fixes lightningdevkit#1824
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt mentioned this issue May 6, 2024
Merged
TheBlueMatt added a commit to TheBlueMatt/rust-lightning that referenced this issue May 9, 2024
@TheBlueMatt
Ignore partially-pruned channels during routing
4fd8cb8 
If we prune one side of a channel's `ChannelUpdateInfo` that means
the node hasn't been online for two weeks (as they haven't
generated a new `channel_update` in that time). In such cases, even
if we haven't yet pruned the channel entirely, we should definitely
not be treating these channels as candidates for routing.

Note that this requires some additional `channel_update`s in the
router tests, but all of the new ones are added as disabled
channels.

Fixes lightningdevkit#1824
valentinewallace pushed a commit to valentinewallace/rust-lightning that referenced this issue May 22, 2024
@TheBlueMatt @valentinewallace
Ignore partially-pruned channels during routing
d6877fa 
If we prune one side of a channel's `ChannelUpdateInfo` that means
the node hasn't been online for two weeks (as they haven't
generated a new `channel_update` in that time). In such cases, even
if we haven't yet pruned the channel entirely, we should definitely
not be treating these channels as candidates for routing.

Note that this requires some additional `channel_update`s in the
router tests, but all of the new ones are added as disabled
channels.

Fixes lightningdevkit#1824
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.1
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Ignore partially-pruned channels during routing TheBlueMatt/rust-lightning
1 participant
@TheBlueMatt