Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>]

Because it's not universally supported, poorly thought through, and no 
backwards compatibility.

Is there a better option?  NO, not at this time.  But it certainly could 
have been better thought through how it was implemented.

On 9/28/20 8:37 AM, Justin Wilson (Lists) wrote:
> It is coming back to that, but you still have so much going on that you 
> need the open ports.  I don’t gt why people fight IPV6 so much.
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j2sw () mtin net <mailto:j2sw () mtin net>
>
> —
> https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109)
> https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
>
> > On Sep 28, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net 
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:lists () mtin net>>
> > *To:*"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org 
> > <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
> > *Sent:*Monday, September 28, 2020 7:22:28 AM
> > *Subject:*Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
> >
> > There 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 down it 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 customer running 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 only 
> > prevalent on gaming consoles because they are doing many functions. 
> >  Look at 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 <mailto:j2sw () mtin net>
> >
> > —
> > https://j2sw.com <https://j2sw.com/>- All things jsw (AS209109)
> > https://blog.j2sw.com <https://blog.j2sw.com/>- Podcast and Blog
> >
> >     On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling
> >     <sterling.daniel () gmail com <mailto: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 of letting NAT control the
> >     ports. This does cause problems when multiple xboxes 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. But
> >     when 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
> >
> >     -- Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:29 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net
> >     <mailto: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
> >         <mailto:mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>>
> >         *To:*"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl () mnwifi com
> >         <mailto:darin.steffl () mnwifi com>>
> >         *Cc:*"North American Network Operators' Group"
> >         <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
> >         *Sent:*Sunday, September 27, 2020 1:22:51 PM
> >         *Subject:*Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4
> >
> >         I 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 apartment complex or hotel WiFi system, etc.
> >
> >             On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Darin Steffl
> >             <darin.steffl () mnwifi com <mailto:darin.steffl () mnwifi com>>
> >             wrote:
> >
> >             
> >             This isn't rocket science.
> >
> >             Give each customer their own ipv4 IP address and turn on
> >             upnp, then they will have open NAT to play their game and
> >             host.
> >
> >             On Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 12:50 PM Matt Hoppes
> >             <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net
> >             <mailto:mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>> wrote:
> >
> >                 I know the solution is always “IPv6”, but I’m curious
> >                 if anyone here knows 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 find their way
> >                 through a PAT system with STUN or other methods?
> >
> >                 It seems like this should be a simple solution, why
> >                 are we still opening ports or having systems that
> >                 don’t work?