Use SocketAddr for connecting outbound instea of SocketAddress?

[TheBlueMatt]

ldk-node currently uses LDK's SocketAddress (which has variants for Tor/I2P/etc) in configuration for the listening address or for the address to connect to in a few places. This implies that ldk-node knows how to connect to Tor/I2P/etc, but I believe that it does not. Instead, shouldn't it use core::net::SocketAddr?

[tnull]

ldk-node currently uses LDK's SocketAddress (which has variants for Tor/I2P/etc) in configuration for the listening address or for the address to connect to in a few places. This implies that ldk-node knows how to connect to Tor/I2P/etc, but I believe that it does not. Instead, shouldn't it use core::net::SocketAddr?

Well, for one we at least consider to eventually support Tor (#178), but more importantly, we use SocketAddress as it also has the Hostname variant, allowing us to store unresolved names that will be resolved prior to usage (fwiw, LDK's historical NetAddress name made the distinction more clear).

[TheBlueMatt]

Ah, presumably we should have our own type, then, since we don't support I2P (let alone OnionV2)?

[tnull]

Ah, presumably we should have our own type, then, since we don't support I2P (let alone OnionV2)?

You mean an LDK Node specific type? Not sure, I generally try to reuse LDK (and BDK/rust-bitcoin) types where possible to allow for easy interop.

[TheBlueMatt]

I assume for the most part folks aren't taking the address out of the network graph from LDK but rather hard-coding it. In the second case I guess it'd be useful, but in the first its just confusing. Not that its all that critical, tho 🤷‍♂ .