Change the default Bandwidth Cap

I suggest raising the default Bandwidth Cap. This will help to unload the network even more, in order to avoid a repeat scenario with a botnet, among other things.

Bandwidth Cap table:

For mobile devices, I suggest raising the cap to N (64KB/s).
For desktops, make P the default (512KB/s).

Based on statistics https://www.speedtest.net/global-index, even at the very bottom of the list, the speed reaches several megabits.

Mobile:

Desktop:

i2pd PurpleI2P/i2pd#2348

Implemented in i2pd PurpleI2P/i2pd@60056fe

[zzzi2p]

Default doesn't matter because new installs prompt the user to run a bandwidth test. It's only used if they skip it.

It's only used if they skip it.

How much users skip this test? Its matter for users who skipped that. Currently their cap will be L, better for network set it to O or P on desktops. IDK said that most of users probably just skip it.

[WaxySteelWorm]

I would be in favor of also changing default BW cap, given the increased internet speeds across the global.
Would also keep us in sync with i2pd

[eyedeekay]

The people I think might benefit from an increased bandwidth cap default are people who install in one of the headless-type setups, with Debian/Ubuntu packages being the largest share. For those users, a browser might not be launched after installing and the platform might not even have a browser installed. Compounding that, such a router is likely to be on a server somewhere, possibly where the intent is to share with the network but if they never run the bandwidth wizard then, I think, we can assume that many of them are failing to meet the intent(to share) optimally for those users.

I'm still not sure whether this is a thing we should change or not, we could also:

• Document how to set bandwidth parameters in the router config files more prominently
• Provide a shell command that does the same measurement as the M-Lab step then applies it to the router config directly, then document that
• Assume competence on the part of the server operators and do nothing assuming they know about how to configure bandwidth themselves.

[zzzi2p]

There's no particular reason to emulate i2pd here. They don't have a bandwidth tester, they diverge from the spec w.r.t. tiers, their comment in their conf file doesn't appear to match their code, and their default also varies based on hw type and ff/not.

Changing default may also have unintended consequences, as i2pd and plus use tiers for tunnel peer selection and a high default may cause our routers to get swamped. Way back I installed a different network application and it ate my computer within a couple days, bad new user experience, we don't want that.

re: headless, 'platform may not have a browser installed', no need, ssh in with console port forwarded, fire up browser on your side and configure as usual. Do users really install i2p headless and never load the console even once? Is that really a common use case?

[eyedeekay]

@zzzi2p as odd as it seems I actually think there is a subculture of people who install I2P who are interested in "just contributing to the network" who do desire a fire-and-forget way of running a router that exists to serve the network as much as possible that they never directly interact with. I won't search exhaustively right now unless you really want me to, but https://github.com/TheTinHat/i2pbootstrap did exist and I'd say it comes across reddit 3-4 times a year. Maybe not a huge demand, but enough to notice.

None of that gives us any numbers though, not sure how to get that, maybe a survey? OTOH, It's not really very different from the notion of installing a Tor router on a server to be a relay for the Tor network, people do that. If such a change to the installer were to win ((total tor relay count)*.5) high-quality reachable I2P routers, say 2500 routers, would that be worth it?

may cause our routers to get swamped

LMAO then why BW caps OPX just exists in Java I2P if these options can "swamp" the router?

There's no particular reason to emulate i2pd here.

Its needed for avoid situation with botnet again, when network just stucked.

Share several megabits for I2P network its not too much for users in 2026 lol. Also you can set an alternative option for example set O or P flag by default only on routers with R cap for simplier deploy on server with static IP address