Gaming Consoles and IPv4
Matt Hoppes
mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net
Mon Sep 28 20:27:58 UTC 2020
Correct - but with a server based model you can look at the lag to the
worst clients and add lag to the other clients so everyone has a level
playing field.
On 9/28/20 3:30 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> 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 is to maintain regional dedicated server infrastructure.
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:35 AM Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net
> <mailto:nanog at 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 at mtin.net
> <mailto:lists at mtin.net>>
> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org
> <mailto:nanog at 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 at mtin.net <mailto:j2sw at mtin.net>
>
> —
> https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109)
> https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
>
> On Sep 27, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Sterling
> <sterling.daniel at gmail.com
> <mailto:sterling.daniel at 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 at ics-il.net <mailto:nanog at 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 at rivervalleyinternet.net
> <mailto:mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net>>
> *To: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl at mnwifi.com
> <mailto:darin.steffl at mnwifi.com>>
> *Cc: *"North American Network Operators' Group"
> <nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at 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 at mnwifi.com
> <mailto:darin.steffl at 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 at rivervalleyinternet.net
> <mailto:mattlists at 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?
>
>
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list