having to match currencies when peering is a bad admin experience

[michielbdejong]

When two ilp-kits peer, they have to agree on a trustline balance. This is an inconvenience which is currently solve manually by the two admins. We need to find an automated way to do this instead.

For instance, if we introduce peering request notifications, then the first admin to peer can choose the currency. Or even if not, one peer can send a hello message (see #92), and propose a currency in there for the other peer to accept.

Another option is if admin1 peers with admin2 by first opening a user account at ilp-kit2, and then using those credentials to set up the peering (that's the flow I'm using for testnet1).

[emschwartz]

Another option is if admin1 peers with admin2 by first opening a user account at ilp-kit2, and then using those credentials to set up the peering (that's the flow I'm using for testnet1).

This was what we had before and it was a really awful experience because you needed to edit the CONNECTOR_LEDGERS config JSON object in the env.list file

[michielbdejong]

I don't think one implies the other? We could have a UI where an admin can select from which users they accept route broadcasts; those users are thereby promoted to peers. This would be in the database, not in the config (obviously this would be quite a refactor because we would have to merge our users table and peers database).