11 KiB
Bellatrix -- Networking
This document contains the networking specification for the Bellatrix.
The specification of these changes continues in the same format as the network specifications of previous upgrades, and assumes them as pre-requisite. This document should be viewed as additive to the documents from Phase 0 and from Altair and will be referred to as the "Phase 0 document" and "Altair document" respectively, hereafter. Readers should understand the Phase 0 and Altair documents and use them as a basis to understand the changes outlined in this document.
Table of contents
Warning
This document is currently illustrative for early Bellatrix testnets and some parts are subject to change. Refer to the note in the validator guide for further details.
Modifications in Bellatrix
Configuration
This section outlines modifications constants that are used in this spec.
Name | Value | Description |
---|---|---|
GOSSIP_MAX_SIZE_BELLATRIX |
10 * 2**20 (= 10,485,760, 10 MiB) |
The maximum allowed size of uncompressed gossip messages starting at Bellatrix upgrade. |
MAX_CHUNK_SIZE_BELLATRIX |
10 * 2**20 (= 10,485,760, 10 MiB) |
The maximum allowed size of uncompressed req/resp chunked responses starting at Bellatrix upgrade. |
The gossip domain: gossipsub
Some gossip meshes are upgraded in Bellatrix to support upgraded types.
Topics and messages
Topics follow the same specification as in prior upgrades. All topics remain stable except the beacon block topic which is updated with the modified type.
The specification around the creation, validation, and dissemination of messages has not changed from the Phase 0 and Altair documents unless explicitly noted here.
Starting at Bellatrix upgrade, each gossipsub message
has a maximum size of GOSSIP_MAX_SIZE_BELLATRIX
.
Clients MUST reject (fail validation) messages that are over this size limit.
Likewise, clients MUST NOT emit or propagate messages larger than this limit.
The derivation of the message-id
remains stable.
The new topics along with the type of the data
field of a gossipsub message are given in this table:
Name | Message Type |
---|---|
beacon_block |
SignedBeaconBlock (modified) |
Note that the ForkDigestValue
path segment of the topic separates the old and the new beacon_block
topics.
Global topics
Bellatrix changes the type of the global beacon block topic.
beacon_block
The type of the payload of this topic changes to the (modified) SignedBeaconBlock
found in Bellatrix.
Specifically, this type changes with the addition of execution_payload
to the inner BeaconBlockBody
.
See Bellatrix state transition document for further details.
Blocks with execution enabled will be permitted to propagate regardless of the validity of the execution payload. This prevents network segregation between optimistic and non-optimistic nodes.
In addition to the gossip validations for this topic from prior specifications,
the following validations MUST pass before forwarding the signed_beacon_block
on the network.
Alias block = signed_beacon_block.message
, execution_payload = block.body.execution_payload
.
- If the execution is enabled for the block -- i.e.
is_execution_enabled(state, block.body)
then validate the following:- [REJECT] The block's execution payload timestamp is correct with respect to the slot
-- i.e.
execution_payload.timestamp == compute_timestamp_at_slot(state, block.slot)
. - [REJECT] The block's parent (defined by
block.parent_root
) passes all validation, excluding verification of theblock.body.execution_payload
. - [IGNORE] The block's parent (defined by
block.parent_root
) passes all validation, including verification of theblock.body.execution_payload
.
- [REJECT] The block's execution payload timestamp is correct with respect to the slot
-- i.e.
The following gossip validation from prior specifications MUST NOT be applied if the execution is enabled for the block -- i.e. is_execution_enabled(state, block.body)
:
- [REJECT] The block's parent (defined by
block.parent_root
) passes validation.
Transitioning the gossip
See gossip transition details found in the Altair document for details on how to handle transitioning gossip topics for Bellatrix.
The Req/Resp domain
Non-faulty, optimistic nodes may send blocks which result in an INVALID response from an execution engine. To prevent network segregation between optimistic and non-optimistic nodes, transmission of an INVALID payload via the Req/Resp domain SHOULD NOT cause a node to be down-scored or disconnected.
Messages
BeaconBlocksByRange v2
Protocol ID: /eth2/beacon_chain/req/beacon_blocks_by_range/2/
Request and Response remain unchanged unless explicitly noted here.
Starting at Bellatrix upgrade,
a global maximum uncompressed byte size of MAX_CHUNK_SIZE_BELLATRIX
MUST be applied to all method response chunks
regardless of type specific bounds that MUST also be respected.
Bellatrix fork-digest is introduced to the context
enum to specify Bellatrix block type.
Per context = compute_fork_digest(fork_version, genesis_validators_root)
:
fork_version |
Chunk SSZ type |
---|---|
GENESIS_FORK_VERSION |
phase0.SignedBeaconBlock |
ALTAIR_FORK_VERSION |
altair.SignedBeaconBlock |
BELLATRIX_FORK_VERSION |
bellatrix.SignedBeaconBlock |
BeaconBlocksByRoot v2
Protocol ID: /eth2/beacon_chain/req/beacon_blocks_by_root/2/
Request and Response remain unchanged.
Bellatrix fork-digest is introduced to the context
enum to specify Bellatrix block type.
Per context = compute_fork_digest(fork_version, genesis_validators_root)
:
fork_version |
Chunk SSZ type |
---|---|
GENESIS_FORK_VERSION |
phase0.SignedBeaconBlock |
ALTAIR_FORK_VERSION |
altair.SignedBeaconBlock |
BELLATRIX_FORK_VERSION |
bellatrix.SignedBeaconBlock |
Design decision rationale
Gossipsub
Why was the max gossip message size increased at Bellatrix?
With the addition of ExecutionPayload
to BeaconBlock
s, there is a dynamic
field -- transactions
-- which can validly exceed the GOSSIP_MAX_SIZE
limit (1 MiB) put in place in
place at Phase 0. At the GAS_LIMIT
(~30M) currently seen on mainnet in 2021, a single transaction
filled entirely with data at a cost of 16 gas per byte can create a valid
ExecutionPayload
of ~2 MiB. Thus we need a size limit to at least account for
current mainnet conditions.
Geth currently has a max gossip message size of 10 MiB.
To support backward compatibility with this previously defined network limit,
we adopt GOSSIP_MAX_SIZE_BELLATRIX
of 10 MiB for maximum gossip sizes at the
point of Bellatrix and beyond. Note, that clients SHOULD still reject objects
that exceed their maximum theoretical bounds which in most cases is less than GOSSIP_MAX_SIZE_BELLATRIX
.
Note, that due to additional size induced by the BeaconBlock
contents (e.g.
proposer signature, operations lists, etc) this does reduce the
theoretical max valid ExecutionPayload
(and transactions
list) size as
slightly lower than 10 MiB. Considering that BeaconBlock
max size is on the
order of 128 KiB in the worst case and the current gas limit (~30M) bounds max blocksize to less
than 2 MiB today, this marginal difference in theoretical bounds will have zero
impact on network functionality and security.
Req/Resp
Why was the max chunk response size increased at Bellatrix?
Similar to the discussion about the maximum gossip size increase, the
ExecutionPayload
type can cause BeaconBlock
s to exceed the 1 MiB bounds put
in place during Phase 0.
As with the gossip limit, 10 MiB is selected because this is firmly below any valid block sizes in the range of gas limits expected in the medium term.
As with both gossip and req/rsp maximum values, type-specific limits should always by simultaneously respected.
Why allow invalid payloads on the P2P network?
The specification allows blocks with invalid payloads to propagate across gossip and via RPC calls. The reasoning for this is as follows:
- Optimistic nodes must listen to block gossip to obtain a view of the head of the chain.
- Therefore, optimistic nodes must propagate gossip blocks. Otherwise, they'd be censoring.
- If optimistic nodes will propose blocks via gossip, then they must respond to requests for the parent via RPC.
- Therefore, optimistic nodes must send optimistic blocks via RPC.
So, to prevent network segregation from optimistic nodes accidentally sending invalid payloads, nodes should never downscore/disconnect nodes due to invalid payloads. This does open the network to some DoS attacks from invalid execution payloads, but the scope of actors is limited to validators who can put those payloads in valid (and slashable) beacon blocks. Therefore, it is argued that the DoS risk introduced in tolerable.
More complicated schemes are possible that could restrict invalid payloads from RPC. However, it's not clear that complexity is warranted.