@lodestar/beacon-node 1.35.0-dev.f80d2d52da → 1.35.0-dev.fd1dac853d

package/src/network/peers/utils/prioritizePeers.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,627 @@
+import {Direction, PeerId} from "@libp2p/interface";
+import {BitArray} from "@chainsafe/ssz";
+import {ChainConfig} from "@lodestar/config";
+import {ATTESTATION_SUBNET_COUNT, SYNC_COMMITTEE_SUBNET_COUNT} from "@lodestar/params";
+import {CustodyIndex, Status, SubnetID, altair, phase0} from "@lodestar/types";
+import {MapDef} from "@lodestar/utils";
+import {shuffle} from "../../../util/shuffle.js";
+import {sortBy} from "../../../util/sortBy.js";
+import {NetworkCoreMetrics} from "../../core/metrics.js";
+import {RequestedSubnet} from "./subnetMap.js";
+
+/** Target number of peers we'd like to have connected to a given long-lived subnet */
+const TARGET_SUBNET_PEERS = 6;
+
+/**
+ * This is for non-sampling groups only. This is a very easy number to achieve given an average of 6.25 peers per column subnet on public networks.
+ * This is needed to always maintain some minimum peers on all subnets so that when we publish a block, we're sure we pubish to all column subnets.
+ */
+const TARGET_GROUP_PEERS_PER_SUBNET = 4;
+
+/**
+ * This is used in the pruning logic. We avoid pruning peers on sync-committees if doing so would
+ * lower our peer count below this number. Instead we favour a non-uniform distribution of subnet
+ * peers.
+ */
+const MIN_SYNC_COMMITTEE_PEERS = 2;
+
+/**
+ * Lighthouse has this value as 0. However, as monitored in Lodestar mainnet node, the max score is 0
+ * and average score is -0.5 to 0 so we want this value to be a little bit more relaxed
+ */
+const LOW_SCORE_TO_PRUNE_IF_TOO_MANY_PEERS = -2;
+
+/**
+ * Instead of attempting to connect the exact amount necessary this will overshoot a little since the success
+ * rate of outgoing connections is low, <33%. If we try to connect exactly `targetPeers - connectedPeerCount` the
+ * peer count will almost always be just below targetPeers triggering constant discoveries that are not necessary
+ */
+const PEERS_TO_CONNECT_OVERSHOOT_FACTOR = 3;
+
+/**
+ * Keep at least 10% of outbound peers. For rationale, see https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/issues/2215
+ */
+const OUTBOUND_PEERS_RATIO = 0.1;
+
+const attnetsZero = BitArray.fromBitLen(ATTESTATION_SUBNET_COUNT);
+const syncnetsZero = BitArray.fromBitLen(SYNC_COMMITTEE_SUBNET_COUNT);
+
+type SubnetDiscvQuery = {subnet: SubnetID; toSlot: number; maxPeersToDiscover: number};
+
+/**
+ * A map of das custody group index to maxPeersToDiscover
+ */
+export type CustodyGroupQueries = Map<CustodyIndex, number>;
+
+/**
+ * Comparison of our status vs a peer's status.
+ *
+ * The main usage of this score is to feed into peer priorization during syncing, and especially when the node is having trouble finding data during syncing
+ *
+ * For network stability, we DON'T distinguish peers that are far behind us vs peers that are close to us.
+ */
+enum StatusScore {
+  /** The peer is close to our chain */
+  CLOSE_TO_US = -1,
+  /** The peer is far ahead of chain */
+  FAR_AHEAD = 0,
+}
+
+/**
+ * In practice, this score only tracks if the peer is far ahead of us or not during syncing.
+ * When the node is synced, the peer is always CLOSE_TO_US.
+ */
+function computeStatusScore(ours: Status, theirs: Status | null, opts: PrioritizePeersOpts): StatusScore {
+  if (theirs === null) {
+    return StatusScore.CLOSE_TO_US;
+  }
+
+  if (theirs.finalizedEpoch > ours.finalizedEpoch) {
+    return StatusScore.FAR_AHEAD;
+  }
+
+  if (theirs.headSlot > ours.headSlot + opts.starvationThresholdSlots) {
+    return StatusScore.FAR_AHEAD;
+  }
+
+  // It's dangerous to downscore peers that are far behind.
+  // This means we'd be more likely to disconnect peers that are attempting to sync, which would affect network stability.
+  // if (ours.headSlot > theirs.headSlot + opts.starvationThresholdSlots) {
+  //   return StatusScore.FAR_BEHIND;
+  // }
+
+  return StatusScore.CLOSE_TO_US;
+}
+
+type PeerInfo = {
+  id: PeerId;
+  direction: Direction | null;
+  statusScore: StatusScore;
+  attnets: phase0.AttestationSubnets;
+  syncnets: altair.SyncSubnets;
+  samplingGroups: CustodyIndex[];
+  attnetsTrueBitIndices: number[];
+  syncnetsTrueBitIndices: number[];
+  score: number;
+};
+
+export type PrioritizePeersOpts = {
+  targetPeers: number;
+  maxPeers: number;
+  targetGroupPeers: number;
+  status: Status;
+  starved: boolean;
+  starvationPruneRatio: number;
+  starvationThresholdSlots: number;
+  outboundPeersRatio?: number;
+  targetSubnetPeers?: number;
+};
+
+export enum ExcessPeerDisconnectReason {
+  LOW_SCORE = "low_score",
+  NO_LONG_LIVED_SUBNET = "no_long_lived_subnet",
+  TOO_GROUPED_SUBNET = "too_grouped_subnet",
+  FIND_BETTER_PEERS = "find_better_peers",
+}
+
+/**
+ * Prioritize which peers to disconect and which to connect. Conditions:
+ * - Reach `targetPeers`
+ *   - If we're starved for data, prune additional peers
+ * - Don't exceed `maxPeers`
+ * - Ensure there are enough peers per column subnets, attestation subnets and sync committee subnets
+ * - Prioritize peers with good score
+ *
+ * pre-fulu samplingGroups is not used and this function returns empty custodyGroupQueries
+ */
+export function prioritizePeers(
+  connectedPeersInfo: {
+    id: PeerId;
+    direction: Direction | null;
+    status: Status | null;
+    attnets: phase0.AttestationSubnets | null;
+    syncnets: altair.SyncSubnets | null;
+    samplingGroups: CustodyIndex[] | null;
+    score: number;
+  }[],
+  activeAttnets: RequestedSubnet[],
+  activeSyncnets: RequestedSubnet[],
+  samplingGroups: CustodyIndex[] | undefined,
+  opts: PrioritizePeersOpts,
+  config: ChainConfig,
+  metrics: NetworkCoreMetrics | null
+): {
+  peersToConnect: number;
+  peersToDisconnect: Map<ExcessPeerDisconnectReason, PeerId[]>;
+  attnetQueries: SubnetDiscvQuery[];
+  syncnetQueries: SubnetDiscvQuery[];
+  custodyGroupQueries: CustodyGroupQueries;
+} {
+  const {targetPeers, maxPeers} = opts;
+
+  let peersToConnect = 0;
+  const peersToDisconnect = new MapDef<ExcessPeerDisconnectReason, PeerId[]>(() => []);
+
+  // Pre-compute trueBitIndexes for re-use below. Set null subnets Maps to default zero value
+  const connectedPeers = connectedPeersInfo.map(
+    (peer): PeerInfo => ({
+      id: peer.id,
+      direction: peer.direction,
+      statusScore: computeStatusScore(opts.status, peer.status, opts),
+      attnets: peer.attnets ?? attnetsZero,
+      syncnets: peer.syncnets ?? syncnetsZero,
+      samplingGroups: peer.samplingGroups ?? [],
+      attnetsTrueBitIndices: peer.attnets?.getTrueBitIndexes() ?? [],
+      syncnetsTrueBitIndices: peer.syncnets?.getTrueBitIndexes() ?? [],
+      score: peer.score,
+    })
+  );
+
+  const {attnetQueries, syncnetQueries, custodyGroupQueries, dutiesByPeer} = requestSubnetPeers(
+    connectedPeers,
+    activeAttnets,
+    activeSyncnets,
+    samplingGroups,
+    opts,
+    config,
+    metrics
+  );
+
+  const connectedPeerCount = connectedPeers.length;
+
+  if (connectedPeerCount < targetPeers) {
+    // Need more peers.
+    // Instead of attempting to connect the exact amount necessary this will overshoot a little since the success
+    // rate of outgoing connections is low, <33%. If we try to connect exactly `targetPeers - connectedPeerCount` the
+    // peer count will almost always be just below targetPeers triggering constant discoveries that are not necessary
+    peersToConnect = Math.min(
+      PEERS_TO_CONNECT_OVERSHOOT_FACTOR * (targetPeers - connectedPeerCount),
+      // Never attempt to connect more peers than maxPeers even considering a low chance of dial success
+      maxPeers - connectedPeerCount
+    );
+  } else if (connectedPeerCount > targetPeers) {
+    pruneExcessPeers(connectedPeers, dutiesByPeer, activeAttnets, peersToDisconnect, opts);
+  }
+
+  return {
+    peersToConnect,
+    peersToDisconnect,
+    attnetQueries,
+    syncnetQueries,
+    custodyGroupQueries,
+  };
+}
+
+/**
+ * If more peers are needed in attnets and syncnets and column subnets, create SubnetDiscvQuery for each subnet
+ * pre-fulu samplingGroups is not used and this function returns empty custodyGroupQueries
+ */
+function requestSubnetPeers(
+  connectedPeers: PeerInfo[],
+  activeAttnets: RequestedSubnet[],
+  activeSyncnets: RequestedSubnet[],
+  ourSamplingGroups: CustodyIndex[] | undefined,
+  opts: PrioritizePeersOpts,
+  config: ChainConfig,
+  metrics: NetworkCoreMetrics | null
+): {
+  attnetQueries: SubnetDiscvQuery[];
+  syncnetQueries: SubnetDiscvQuery[];
+  custodyGroupQueries: CustodyGroupQueries;
+  dutiesByPeer: Map<PeerInfo, number>;
+} {
+  const {targetSubnetPeers = TARGET_SUBNET_PEERS} = opts;
+  const attnetQueries: SubnetDiscvQuery[] = [];
+  const syncnetQueries: SubnetDiscvQuery[] = [];
+
+  // To filter out peers containing enough attnets of interest from possible disconnection
+  const dutiesByPeer = new Map<PeerInfo, number>();
+
+  // attnets, do we need queries for more peers
+  if (activeAttnets.length > 0) {
+    /** Map of peers per subnet, peer may be in multiple arrays */
+    const peersPerSubnet = new Map<number, number>();
+
+    for (const peer of connectedPeers) {
+      const trueBitIndices = peer.attnetsTrueBitIndices;
+      let dutyCount = 0;
+      for (const {subnet} of activeAttnets) {
+        if (trueBitIndices.includes(subnet)) {
+          dutyCount += 1;
+          peersPerSubnet.set(subnet, 1 + (peersPerSubnet.get(subnet) ?? 0));
+        }
+      }
+      dutiesByPeer.set(peer, dutyCount);
+    }
+
+    for (const {subnet, toSlot} of activeAttnets) {
+      const peersInSubnet = peersPerSubnet.get(subnet) ?? 0;
+      if (peersInSubnet < targetSubnetPeers) {
+        // We need more peers
+        attnetQueries.push({subnet, toSlot, maxPeersToDiscover: targetSubnetPeers - peersInSubnet});
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  // syncnets, do we need queries for more peers
+  if (activeSyncnets.length > 0) {
+    /** Map of peers per subnet, peer may be in multiple arrays */
+    const peersPerSubnet = new Map<number, number>();
+
+    for (const peer of connectedPeers) {
+      const trueBitIndices = peer.syncnetsTrueBitIndices;
+      let dutyCount = dutiesByPeer.get(peer) ?? 0;
+      for (const {subnet} of activeSyncnets) {
+        if (trueBitIndices.includes(subnet)) {
+          dutyCount += 1;
+          peersPerSubnet.set(subnet, 1 + (peersPerSubnet.get(subnet) ?? 0));
+        }
+      }
+      dutiesByPeer.set(peer, dutyCount);
+    }
+
+    for (const {subnet, toSlot} of activeSyncnets) {
+      const peersInSubnet = peersPerSubnet.get(subnet) ?? 0;
+      if (peersInSubnet < targetSubnetPeers) {
+        // We need more peers
+        syncnetQueries.push({subnet, toSlot, maxPeersToDiscover: targetSubnetPeers - peersInSubnet});
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  const custodyGroupQueries: CustodyGroupQueries = new Map();
+  // pre-fulu
+  if (ourSamplingGroups == null) {
+    return {attnetQueries, syncnetQueries, custodyGroupQueries, dutiesByPeer};
+  }
+
+  // column subnets, do we need queries for more peers
+  const targetGroupPeersPerSamplingGroup = opts.targetGroupPeers;
+  const peersPerGroup = new Map<CustodyIndex, number>();
+  for (const peer of connectedPeers) {
+    const peerSamplingGroups = peer.samplingGroups;
+    for (const group of peerSamplingGroups) {
+      peersPerGroup.set(group, 1 + (peersPerGroup.get(group) ?? 0));
+    }
+  }
+
+  const ourSamplingGroupSet = new Set(ourSamplingGroups);
+  for (let groupIndex = 0; groupIndex < config.NUMBER_OF_CUSTODY_GROUPS; groupIndex++) {
+    const peersInGroup = peersPerGroup.get(groupIndex) ?? 0;
+    metrics?.peerCountPerSamplingGroup.set({groupIndex}, peersInGroup);
+    const targetGroupPeers = ourSamplingGroupSet.has(groupIndex)
+      ? targetGroupPeersPerSamplingGroup
+      : TARGET_GROUP_PEERS_PER_SUBNET;
+    if (peersInGroup < targetGroupPeers) {
+      // We need more peers
+      custodyGroupQueries.set(groupIndex, targetGroupPeers - peersInGroup);
+    }
+  }
+
+  return {attnetQueries, syncnetQueries, custodyGroupQueries, dutiesByPeer};
+}
+
+/**
+ * Remove excess peers back down to our target values.
+ * 1. Remove peers that are not subscribed to a subnet (they have less value)
+ * 2. Remove worst scoring peers
+ * 3. Remove peers that we have many on any particular subnet
+ *   - Only consider removing peers on subnet that has > TARGET_SUBNET_PEERS to be safe
+ *   - If we have a choice, do not remove peer that would drop us below targetPeersPerAttnetSubnet
+ *   - If we have a choice, do not remove peer that would drop us below MIN_SYNC_COMMITTEE_PEERS
+ *
+ * Although the logic looks complicated, we'd prune 5 peers max per heartbeat based on the mainnet config.
+ */
+function pruneExcessPeers(
+  connectedPeers: PeerInfo[],
+  dutiesByPeer: Map<PeerInfo, number>,
+  activeAttnets: RequestedSubnet[],
+  peersToDisconnect: MapDef<ExcessPeerDisconnectReason, PeerId[]>,
+  opts: PrioritizePeersOpts
+): void {
+  const {targetPeers, targetSubnetPeers = TARGET_SUBNET_PEERS, outboundPeersRatio = OUTBOUND_PEERS_RATIO} = opts;
+  const connectedPeerCount = connectedPeers.length;
+  const outboundPeersTarget = Math.round(outboundPeersRatio * connectedPeerCount);
+
+  // Count outbound peers
+  let outboundPeers = 0;
+  for (const peer of connectedPeers) {
+    if (peer.direction === "outbound") {
+      outboundPeers++;
+    }
+  }
+
+  let outboundPeersEligibleForPruning = 0;
+
+  const sortedPeers = sortPeersToPrune(connectedPeers, dutiesByPeer);
+
+  const peersEligibleForPruning = sortedPeers
+    // Then, iterate from highest score to lowest doing a manual filter for duties and outbound ratio
+    .filter((peer) => {
+      // Peers with duties are not eligible for pruning
+      if ((dutiesByPeer.get(peer) ?? 0) > 0) {
+        return false;
+      }
+
+      // Peers far ahead when we're starved for data are not eligible for pruning
+      if (opts.starved && peer.statusScore === StatusScore.FAR_AHEAD) {
+        return false;
+      }
+
+      // outbound peers up to OUTBOUND_PEER_RATIO sorted by highest score and not eligible for pruning
+      if (peer.direction === "outbound") {
+        if (outboundPeers - outboundPeersEligibleForPruning > outboundPeersTarget) {
+          outboundPeersEligibleForPruning++;
+        } else {
+          return false;
+        }
+      }
+
+      return true;
+    });
+
+  let peersToDisconnectCount = 0;
+  const noLongLivedSubnetPeersToDisconnect: PeerId[] = [];
+
+  const peersToDisconnectTarget =
+    // if we're starved for data, prune additional peers
+    connectedPeerCount - targetPeers + (opts.starved ? targetPeers * opts.starvationPruneRatio : 0);
+
+  // 1. Lodestar prefers disconnecting peers that does not have long lived subnets
+  // See https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/issues/3940
+  // peers with low score will be disconnected through heartbeat in the end
+  for (const peer of peersEligibleForPruning) {
+    const hasLongLivedSubnet = peer.attnetsTrueBitIndices.length > 0 || peer.syncnetsTrueBitIndices.length > 0;
+    if (!hasLongLivedSubnet && peersToDisconnectCount < peersToDisconnectTarget) {
+      noLongLivedSubnetPeersToDisconnect.push(peer.id);
+      peersToDisconnectCount++;
+    }
+  }
+  peersToDisconnect.set(ExcessPeerDisconnectReason.NO_LONG_LIVED_SUBNET, noLongLivedSubnetPeersToDisconnect);
+
+  // 2. Disconnect peers that have score < LOW_SCORE_TO_PRUNE_IF_TOO_MANY_PEERS
+  const badScorePeersToDisconnect: PeerId[] = [];
+  for (const peer of peersEligibleForPruning) {
+    if (
+      peer.score < LOW_SCORE_TO_PRUNE_IF_TOO_MANY_PEERS &&
+      peersToDisconnectCount < peersToDisconnectTarget &&
+      !noLongLivedSubnetPeersToDisconnect.includes(peer.id)
+    ) {
+      badScorePeersToDisconnect.push(peer.id);
+      peersToDisconnectCount++;
+    }
+  }
+  peersToDisconnect.set(ExcessPeerDisconnectReason.LOW_SCORE, badScorePeersToDisconnect);
+
+  // 3. Disconnect peers that are too grouped on any given subnet
+  const tooGroupedPeersToDisconnect: PeerId[] = [];
+  if (peersToDisconnectCount < peersToDisconnectTarget) {
+    // PeerInfo array by attestation subnet
+    const subnetToPeers = new MapDef<number, PeerInfo[]>(() => []);
+    // number of peers per long lived sync committee
+    const syncCommitteePeerCount = new MapDef<number, number>(() => 0);
+
+    // populate the above variables
+    for (const peer of connectedPeers) {
+      if (noLongLivedSubnetPeersToDisconnect.includes(peer.id) || badScorePeersToDisconnect.includes(peer.id)) {
+        continue;
+      }
+      for (const subnet of peer.attnetsTrueBitIndices) {
+        subnetToPeers.getOrDefault(subnet).push(peer);
+      }
+      for (const subnet of peer.syncnetsTrueBitIndices) {
+        syncCommitteePeerCount.set(subnet, 1 + syncCommitteePeerCount.getOrDefault(subnet));
+      }
+    }
+
+    while (peersToDisconnectCount < peersToDisconnectTarget) {
+      const maxPeersSubnet = findMaxPeersSubnet(subnetToPeers, targetSubnetPeers);
+      // peers are NOT too grouped on any given subnet, finish this loop
+      if (maxPeersSubnet === null) {
+        break;
+      }
+
+      const peersOnMostGroupedSubnet = subnetToPeers.get(maxPeersSubnet);
+      if (peersOnMostGroupedSubnet === undefined) {
+        break;
+      }
+
+      // Find peers to remove from the current maxPeersSubnet
+      const removedPeer = findPeerToRemove(
+        subnetToPeers,
+        syncCommitteePeerCount,
+        peersOnMostGroupedSubnet,
+        targetSubnetPeers,
+        activeAttnets
+      );
+
+      // If we have successfully found a candidate peer to prune, prune it,
+      // otherwise all peers on this subnet should not be removed.
+      // In this case, we remove all peers from the pruning logic and try another subnet.
+      if (removedPeer != null) {
+        // recalculate variables
+        removePeerFromSubnetToPeers(subnetToPeers, removedPeer);
+        decreaseSynccommitteePeerCount(syncCommitteePeerCount, removedPeer.syncnetsTrueBitIndices);
+
+        tooGroupedPeersToDisconnect.push(removedPeer.id);
+        peersToDisconnectCount++;
+      } else {
+        // no peer to remove from the maxPeersSubnet
+        // should continue with the 2nd biggest maxPeersSubnet
+        subnetToPeers.delete(maxPeersSubnet);
+      }
+    }
+
+    peersToDisconnect.set(ExcessPeerDisconnectReason.TOO_GROUPED_SUBNET, tooGroupedPeersToDisconnect);
+
+    // 4. Ensure to always to prune to target peers
+    // In rare case, all peers may have duties and good score but very low long lived subnet,
+    // and not too grouped to any subnets, we need to always disconnect peers until it reaches targetPeers
+    // because we want to keep improving peers (long lived subnets + score)
+    // otherwise we'll not able to accept new peer connection to consider better peers
+    // see https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/issues/5198
+    const remainingPeersToDisconnect: PeerId[] = [];
+    for (const {id} of sortedPeers) {
+      if (peersToDisconnectCount >= peersToDisconnectTarget) {
+        break;
+      }
+      if (
+        noLongLivedSubnetPeersToDisconnect.includes(id) ||
+        badScorePeersToDisconnect.includes(id) ||
+        tooGroupedPeersToDisconnect.includes(id)
+      ) {
+        continue;
+      }
+      remainingPeersToDisconnect.push(id);
+      peersToDisconnectCount++;
+    }
+
+    peersToDisconnect.set(ExcessPeerDisconnectReason.FIND_BETTER_PEERS, remainingPeersToDisconnect);
+  }
+}
+
+/**
+ * Sort peers ascending, peer-0 has the most chance to prune, peer-n has the least.
+ * Shuffling first to break ties.
+ * prefer sorting by status score (applicable during syncing), then dutied subnets, then number of long lived subnets, then peer score
+ * peer score is the last criteria since they are supposed to be in the same score range,
+ * bad score peers are removed by peer manager anyway
+ */
+export function sortPeersToPrune(connectedPeers: PeerInfo[], dutiesByPeer: Map<PeerInfo, number>): PeerInfo[] {
+  return shuffle(connectedPeers).sort((p1, p2) => {
+    const dutiedSubnet1 = dutiesByPeer.get(p1) ?? 0;
+    const dutiedSubnet2 = dutiesByPeer.get(p2) ?? 0;
+    if (dutiedSubnet1 === dutiedSubnet2) {
+      const statusScore = p1.statusScore - p2.statusScore;
+      if (statusScore !== 0) {
+        return statusScore;
+      }
+      const [longLivedSubnets1, longLivedSubnets2] = [p1, p2].map(
+        (p) => p.attnetsTrueBitIndices.length + p.syncnetsTrueBitIndices.length
+      );
+      if (longLivedSubnets1 === longLivedSubnets2) {
+        return p1.score - p2.score;
+      }
+      return longLivedSubnets1 - longLivedSubnets2;
+    }
+    return dutiedSubnet1 - dutiedSubnet2;
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Find subnet that has the most peers and > TARGET_SUBNET_PEERS, return null if peers are not grouped
+ * to any subnets.
+ */
+function findMaxPeersSubnet(subnetToPeers: Map<number, PeerInfo[]>, targetSubnetPeers: number): SubnetID | null {
+  let maxPeersSubnet: SubnetID | null = null;
+  let maxPeerCountPerSubnet = -1;
+
+  for (const [subnet, peers] of subnetToPeers) {
+    if (peers.length > targetSubnetPeers && peers.length > maxPeerCountPerSubnet) {
+      maxPeersSubnet = subnet;
+      maxPeerCountPerSubnet = peers.length;
+    }
+  }
+
+  return maxPeersSubnet;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Find peers to remove from the current maxPeersSubnet.
+ * In the long term, this logic will help us gradually find peers with more long lived subnet.
+ * Return null if we should not remove any peer on the most grouped subnet.
+ */
+function findPeerToRemove(
+  subnetToPeers: Map<number, PeerInfo[]>,
+  syncCommitteePeerCount: Map<number, number>,
+  peersOnMostGroupedSubnet: PeerInfo[],
+  targetSubnetPeers: number,
+  activeAttnets: RequestedSubnet[]
+): PeerInfo | null {
+  const peersOnSubnet = sortBy(peersOnMostGroupedSubnet, (peer) => peer.attnetsTrueBitIndices.length);
+  let removedPeer: PeerInfo | null = null;
+  for (const candidatePeer of peersOnSubnet) {
+    // new logic of lodestar
+    const attnetIndices = candidatePeer.attnetsTrueBitIndices;
+    if (attnetIndices.length > 0) {
+      const requestedSubnets = activeAttnets.map((activeAttnet) => activeAttnet.subnet);
+      let minAttnetCount = ATTESTATION_SUBNET_COUNT;
+      // intersection of requested subnets and subnets that peer subscribes to
+      for (const subnet of requestedSubnets) {
+        const numSubnetPeers = subnetToPeers.get(subnet)?.length;
+        if (numSubnetPeers !== undefined && numSubnetPeers < minAttnetCount && attnetIndices.includes(subnet)) {
+          minAttnetCount = numSubnetPeers;
+        }
+      }
+      // shouldn't remove this peer because it drops us below targetSubnetPeers
+      if (minAttnetCount <= targetSubnetPeers) {
+        continue;
+      }
+    }
+
+    // same logic to lighthouse
+    const syncnetIndices = candidatePeer.syncnetsTrueBitIndices;
+    // The peer is subscribed to some long-lived sync-committees
+    if (syncnetIndices.length > 0) {
+      const minSubnetCount = Math.min(...syncnetIndices.map((subnet) => syncCommitteePeerCount.get(subnet) ?? 0));
+      // If the minimum count is our target or lower, we
+      // shouldn't remove this peer, because it drops us lower
+      // than our target
+      if (minSubnetCount <= MIN_SYNC_COMMITTEE_PEERS) {
+        continue;
+      }
+    }
+
+    // ok, found a peer to remove
+    removedPeer = candidatePeer;
+    break;
+  }
+
+  return removedPeer;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Remove a peer from subnetToPeers map.
+ */
+function removePeerFromSubnetToPeers(subnetToPeers: Map<number, PeerInfo[]>, removedPeer: PeerInfo): void {
+  for (const peers of subnetToPeers.values()) {
+    const index = peers.findIndex((peer) => peer === removedPeer);
+    if (index >= 0) {
+      peers.splice(index, 1);
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+/**
+ * Decrease the syncCommitteePeerCount from the specified committees set
+ */
+function decreaseSynccommitteePeerCount(
+  syncCommitteePeerCount: MapDef<number, number>,
+  committees: number[] | undefined
+): void {
+  if (committees) {
+    for (const syncCommittee of committees) {
+      syncCommitteePeerCount.set(syncCommittee, Math.max(syncCommitteePeerCount.getOrDefault(syncCommittee) - 1, 0));
+    }
+  }
+}