Skip to content
Open
Changes from 16 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
130 changes: 130 additions & 0 deletions src/ipips/ipip-0499.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
---
title: 'IPIP-0499: CID Profiles'
date: 2025-04-03
ipip: proposal
editors:
- name: Michelle Lee
github: mishmosh
affiliation:
name: IPFS Foundation
- name: Daniel Norman
github: 2color
affiliation:
name: Shipyard
url: https://ipshipyard.com
relatedIssues:
- https://discuss.ipfs.tech/t/should-we-profile-cids/18507
order: 0499
tags: ['ipips']
---

## Summary

This proposal introduces configuration profiles for CIDs used to represent files and directories with UnixFS. These ensure that the deterministic CID generation for the same data, regardless of the implementation.

Profiles explicitly define the UnixFS parameters, e.g. dag width, hash algorithm, and chunk size, that affect the resulting CID, such that given the profile and input data different implementations will generate identical CIDs.

## Motivation

UnixFS CIDs are not deterministic. This means that the same file tree can yield different CIDs depending on the parameters used by the implementation to generate it, which in some cases, aren't even configurable by the user. For example, the chunk size, DAG width, and layout can vary between implementations or even between different versions of the same implementation.

This lack of determinism makes has a number of drawbacks:

- It is difficult to verify content across different tools and implementations, as the same content may yield different CIDs.
- Users are required to store and transfer UnixFS merkle proofs in order to verify CIDs, adding storage overhead, network bandwidth, and complexity to the verification process.
- In terms of developer experience, it deviates from the mental model of a hash function, where the same input should always yield the same output. This leads to confusion and frustration when working with UnixFS CIDs

By introducing profiles which define the parameters that affect the root CID of the DAG, we can benefit from both the optionality offered by UnixFS, where users are free to chose their own parameters, and determinism through profiles.

## Detailed design

We introduce a set of named profiles that define a set of parameters for generating UnixFS CIDs. These profiles can be used by implementations to ensure that the same content will yield the same CID across different tools and implementations.

### UnixFS parameters

The profiles define a set of parameters that affect the resulting string encoding of the CID. These parameters are based on the UnixFS specification and are used to generate the CID for a given file tree. The parameters include:

1. CID version, e.g. CIDv0 or CIDv1
1. Multibase encoding for the CID, e.g. base32
1. Hash function used for all nodes in the DAG, e.g. sha2-256
1. UnixFS file chunking algorithm
1. UnixFS file chunk size or target (if required by the chunking algorithm)
1. UnixFS DAG layout (e.g. balanced, trickle etc...)
1. UnixFS DAG width (max number of links per `File` node)
1. `HAMTDirectory` fanout (must be a power of 2)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this can alternatively be called "bitwidth" and you just use the number of bits for this, it's what we're doing in all the other hamts we have. So the default bitwidth is 8 = 256 leaves, bitwidth of 5 would be 32, etc.

1. `HAMTDirectory` threshold (max `Directory` size before switching to `HAMTDirectory`): based on an estimate of the block size by counting the size of PNNode.Links
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this number is dynamic based on the lengths of the actual link entries in the dag, we will need to specify what algorithm that estimation follows. I would put such things in a special "ipfs legacy" profile to be honest, along with cidv0, non-raw leaves etc. We probably should heavily discourage coming up with profiles that do weird things, like dynamically setting params or not using raw-leaves for things.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, each layout would have its own set of layout-params:

  • balanced:
    • max-links: N
  • trickle:
    • max-leaves-per-level: N

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We probably should heavily discourage coming up with profiles that do weird things, like dynamically setting params or not using raw-leaves for things.

Yeah, that's exactly what we're doing by defining this profile.

1. Leaf Envelope: either `dag-pb` or `raw`
1. Whether empty directories are included in the DAG. Some implementations apply filtering before merkleizing filesystem entries in the DAG.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

couple of other things to consider?

  • Directory wrapping at the top level (for just files, kubo has an option to wrap in a directory so you get file metadata)
  • Presence and accurate setting of Tsize - at one point we were going to deprecate this field for some cases, although I think all our encoders now do it properly, you could just mandate this in the spec though -- all valid profiles must properly encode Tsize.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added this as a parameter.

According to the latest version of https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/331/files, the calculation is done as follows:

To compute the Tsize of a child DAG, sum the length of the dag-pb outside message binary length and the blocksizes of all nodes in the child DAG.

If calculated according to this, does it make accurate?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sounds about right, I remember there being some nuance in exactly what's included in the size calculation, making it not super stable if you get it slightly wrong (as we did for some variants in go-unixfsnode for a while)

This would be specified as a table in (forthcoming [UnixFS spec](https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/331/files)).

## Named profiles

To make it easier for users and implementations to choose a set of parameters, we define a named profile `unixfs-2025` to encapsulate the parameters established as the baseline default by multiple implementations as of 2025.

The **`unixfs-2025`** profile name is designed to be referenced by implementations and users to ensure that the same content will yield the same CID across different tools and implementations.

The profile is defined as follows:

| Parameter | Value |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| CID version | CIDv1 |
| Hash function | sha2-256 |
| Max chunk size | 1MiB |
| DAG layout | balanced |
| DAG width (children per node) | 1024 |
| `HAMTDirectory` fanout | 256 blocks |
| `HAMTDirectory` threshold | 256KiB (estimated by counting the size of PBNode.links) |
| Leaves | raw |
| Empty directories | TODO |

## Current defaults

Here is a summary table of current (2025-Q2) defaults:

| | Helia default | Kubo `legacy-cid-v0` (default) | Storacha default | Kubo `test-cid-v1` | Kubo `test-cid-v1-wide` | DASL |
| ----------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------ | ---------------- | ------------------ | ----------------------- | ------------- |
| CID version | CIDv1 | CIDv0 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 |
| Hash function | sha2-256 | sha2-256 | sha2-256 | sha2-256 | sha2-256 | sha2-256 |
| Max chunk size | 1MiB | 256KiB | 1MiB | 1MiB | 1MiB | not specified |
| DAG layout | balanced | balanced | balanced | balanced | balanced | not specified |
| DAG width (children per node) | 1024 | 174 | 1024 | 174 | **1024** | not specified |
| `HAMTDirectory` fanout | 256 blocks | 256 blocks | 256 blocks | 256 blocks | **1024** | not specified |
| `HAMTDirectory` threshold | 256KiB (est) | 256KiB (est:links[name+cid]) | 1000 **links** | 256KiB | **1MiB** | not specified |
| Leaves | raw | raw | raw | raw | raw | not specified |
| Empty directories | Included | Included | Ignored | Included | Included | not specified |

See related discussion at https://discuss.ipfs.tech/t/should-we-profile-cids/18507/

### User benefit

Profiles reduce the burden of verifying UnixFS content, as users can simply choose a profile and know that the resulting CIDs will be deterministic across implementations. This eliminates the need for users to understand the underlying parameters that affect CID generation, and allows them to focus on the content itself.

Moreover, profiles allow users to verify content without needing to rely on additional merkle proofs and CAR files, which can be cumbersome and inefficient.

Finally, profiles improve the developer experience by aligning with the mental model of a hash function.

### Compatibility

UnixFS Data encoded with the profiles defined in this IPIP is fully compatible with existing implementations, as it is fully compliant with the UnixFS specification.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cannot be compliant with details that are not specified as of today..

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Contingent on #331


To produce CIDs that are compliant with this IPIP, implementations will need to support the parameters defined in the profiles. This may require changes to existing implementations to expose configuration options for the parameters, or to implement new functionality to support the profiles.

Kubo 0.35 will have [`Import.*` configuration](https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/blob/master/docs/config.md#import) option to control DAG width.

### Alternatives

As an alternative to profiles, users can store and transfer CAR files of UnixFS content, which include the merkle DAG nodes needed to verify the CID.

## Test fixtures

TODO

List relevant CIDs. Describe how implementations can use them to determine
specification compliance. This section can be skipped if IPIP does not deal
with the way IPFS handles content-addressed data, or the modified specification
file already includes this information.

### Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
Loading