chore: support yamux to wherever mplex is supported

[maschad]

Closes #1578

[maschad]

It may be wise to merge this after #1533 is merged due to potential conflicts

[achingbrain]

Stream muxers are negotiated in the order in which they are configured - if mplex is first and both peers support mplex, only mplex will be used.

Yamux appears to be configured behind mplex everywhere here so it's not actually going to be used in the tests.

[maschad]

Stream muxers are negotiated in the order in which they are configured - if mplex is first and both peers support mplex, only mplex will be used.

Is there any particular reason for enforcing this? I know that Yamux should be used over mplex so should we default to Yamux and allow Mplex to be configured in the case where a consumer wants to provide backward-compatibility with legacy nodes?

[p-shahi]

Stream muxers are negotiated in the order in which they are configured - if mplex is first and both peers support mplex, only mplex will be used.

Is there any particular reason for enforcing this? I know that Yamux should be used over mplex so should we default to Yamux and allow Mplex to be configured in the case where a consumer wants to provide backward-compatibility with legacy nodes?

I think @achingbrain is saying that it should be reversed: i.e. streamMuxers: [mplex(),yamux()], should be streamMuxers: [yamux(),mplex()],

[BigLep]

@maschad : what are the next steps here to complete this? Does ChainSafe/js-libp2p-yamux#26 need to get landed? I see it as marked as draft. What do we need to to for it to get reviewed?

This work isn't urgent is important. It seems like every month in IPFS-land we hit bumps around still needing to fallback to mplex because yamux hasn't been rolled out more broadly or at least isn't on by default in new versions.

[maschad]

Yes @BigLep that's correct. I have some remaining work on ChainSafe/js-libp2p-yamux#26 to ensure it's throwing the correct error when the stream resets, before it can be reviewed. I will prioritize that this week.

[BigLep]

Thanks @maschad . I'll defer to @p-shahi on overall priorities as he has better lay of the land and certainly universal connectivity is the key thing to get ahead on. I just want to make sure this doesn't languish. Thanks a lot!

[maschad]

Once ChainSafe/js-libp2p-yamux#26 is merged we can upgrade to 4.0.1 and then this can be merged This is ready for re-review.

[p-shahi]

Should this be included in #1707 @achingbrain