Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

What evidence is there that non-ISP-provided routers are prevalent? I don't know anyone that doesn't have an IT 
power-user intervening that has their own router. If something works without a separate router, most people aren't 
going to go out of their way to get one. 


https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ 
It does seem like there's enough IPv6 use in the last mile networks where they don't need the IPv4 users anymore. 








----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org>, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel () gmail com> 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:45:24 AM 
Subject: Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 

Yes 

No. 

On 9/28/20 8:44 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> Are non-ISP-provided routers all that common anymore? 
>
> Aren't there enough IPv6-enabled operators with critical mass of IPv6 
> deployments that IPv4-only networks can be treated like the second-tier 
> citizens they are? 
>
>
>
> ----- 
> 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: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>, "Daniel Sterling" 
> <sterling.daniel () gmail com> 
> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org> 
> *Sent: *Monday, September 28, 2020 7:42:16 AM 
> *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 
>
> Many... but not all... and just because the operator is doesn't mean the 
> person you want to play with is. And just because the operator is 
> doesn't mean the router you or the other person is using supports it. 
>
> On 9/28/20 8:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> > Aren't most of the major operators using IPv6? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 
> > 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: *"Daniel Sterling" <sterling.daniel () gmail com> 
> > *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
> > *Cc: *"Matt Hoppes" <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>, "North American 
> > Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org> 
> > *Sent: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:33:56 PM 
> > *Subject: *Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4 
> >
> > 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?