nanog mailing list archives
Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011 () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:30:38 -0300
Delay, or “lag” in gamer parlance is everything. Have too much lag and you are dead without realizing you are dead. Lag frustrates gamers enormously and is probably one of the main drivers of NOC calls.
It seems to me that a purely client/server model will inherently have more lag issues than a peer-to-peer game.
Not to mention cost… if you are the game publisher suddenly you’re faced with maintaining a global footprint of servers with all that implies.
/Carlos On 28 Sep 2020, at 11:21, Tom Beecher wrote:
>Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers?Much cheaper to just let all the game clients talk peer to peer than it isto maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:Why stray away from how PC games were 20 years ago where there was a dedicated server and clients just spoke to servers? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists () mtin net> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 7:22:28 AM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4There are many things going on with gaming that makes natted IPv4 an issue when it comes to consoles and gaming in general. When you break it downit makes sense. -You have voice chat -You are receiving data from servers about other people in the game -You are sending data to servers about yourself-If you are using certain features where you are “the host” then you are serving content from your gaming console. This is not much different than a customer running a web server. You can’t have more than one customerrunning a port 80 web-server behind nat. -Streaming to services like Twitch or YouTube All of these take up standard, agreed upon ports. It’s really onlyprevalent on gaming consoles because they are doing many functions. Lookat it another way. You have a customer doing the following. -Making a VOIP call -Streaming a movie -Running a web server -Running bittorrent on a single port -Having a camera folks need to access from the outside world This is why platforms like Xbox developed things like Teredo. Justin Wilson j2sw () mtin net — https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109) https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and BlogOn Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel () gmail com>wrote: Matt Hoppes raises an interesting question,At the risk of this being off-topic, in the latest call of duty games I've played, their UDP-NAT-breaking algorithm seems to work rather well and should function fine even behind CGNAT. Ironically turning on upnp makes this *worse*, because when their algorithm probes to see what ports to use, upnp sends all traffic from the "magical xbox port" to one box instead ofletting NAT control the ports. This does cause problems when multiplexboxes are behind one NAT doing upnp. If upnp is on and both xboxes are fully powered off and then turned on one at a time, things do work. Butwhen upnp is off everything works w/o having to do that.There are many other games and many CPE NAT boxes that may do horrible things, but CGNAT by itself shouldn't cause problems for any recent device/ gaming system.It is true that I've yet to see any FPS game use ipv6. I assume that's cuz they can't count on users having v6, so they have to support v4, and it wouldn't be worth their while to have their gaming host support dual-stack.just a guess there -- DanOn Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:29 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:Actually, uPNP is the only way to get two devices to work behind one public IP, at least with XBox 360s. I haven't kept up in that realm. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl () mnwifi com> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org> *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 1:22:51 PM *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4I understand that. But there’s a host of reasons why that night not work - two devices trying to use UPNP behind the same PAT device, an apartmentcomplex or hotel WiFi system, etc. On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Darin Steffl <darin.steffl () mnwifi com> wrote: This isn't rocket science.Give each customer their own ipv4 IP address and turn on upnp, then theywill have open NAT to play their game and host. On Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 12:50 PM Matt Hoppes < mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net> wrote:I know the solution is always “IPv6”, but I’m curious if anyone hereknows why gaming consoles are so stupid when it comes to IPv4?We have VoIP and video systems that work fine through multiple layers of PAT and NAT. Why do we still have gaming consoles, in 2020, that can’t findtheir way through a PAT system with STUN or other methods?It seems like this should be a simple solution, why are we still openingports or having systems that don’t work?
Current thread:
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4, (continued)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Mike Hammett (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Justin Wilson (Lists) (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Jared Mauch (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Matt Hoppes (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Mike Hammett (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Tom Beecher (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Martijn Schmidt via NANOG (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Mike Hammett (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Matthew Petach (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Tom Beecher (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Carlos M. Martinez (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Tom Beecher (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Matt Hoppes (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Matthew Petach (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Matt Erculiani (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Valdis Klētnieks (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Chris Adams (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Seth Mattinen (Sep 28)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Daniel Sterling (Sep 30)
- Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 Josh Luthman (Sep 30)